Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE.

MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Labour whether men called up and medically examined, but who have had their posting to the Armed Forces deferred for a period, will be given a further medical examination before having to report for service?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I have given consideration to this question. If re-examination after a specified period were to be prescribed, it would not be administratively practicable to confine it to men about to be called up, and a great amount of trouble and expense would be caused to no purpose. I propose, therefore, to arrange for men who have been medically examined to be informed that they should let the Ministry know if subsequently they think there has been any deterioration in their physical condition, so that a further medical examination may be held in such cases. This arrangement will cover cases that would not be included in a system of automatic re-examination after a fixed period.

Mr. Mathers: Has my right lion. Friend been in touch with the Ministry of Pensions and the Army authorities to safeguard these Departments against the possibility of men being called up who, unknown to themselves, have become unlit? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the question relates to the opportunity provided for men who are called up to make a further application for postponement on grounds of hardship. How does the Minister propose to provide for them?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot add anything to the answer I have given. I have given

careful consideration to the matter, but administratively it is as far as I can go in making it a workable arrangement. My Department is in close collaboration with the others concerned.

Mr. Kirkwood: If particular cases are submitted to my right hon. Friend, will he be prepared to go into them?

Mr. Bevin: That, quite clearly, is contained in my answer.

SKILLED MEN, HOME GUARD.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the exemption from other military service of all skilled men of 35 years of age who are in the heavy industries who have served a minimum period of six months in the Home Guard, and passed the proficiency test, providing such men continue to serve in the Home Guard?

Mr. Bevin: Skilled men, aged 35 years and over, in the heavy industries are already reserved from military service. I should add that on grounds of general policy I am not prepared to make service in the Home Guard a ground of reservation.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAGES AND COST OF LIVING.

Mr. Cary: asked the Minister of Labour what is the percentage rise in the general level of wages to 1st June, 1941, compared with 1st September, 1939; and also the rise in the cost of living between the same dates?

Mr. Bevin: On the basis of such information as is available, relating mainly to rates of wages fixed by collective agreements, arbitration awards, or statutory orders, it is estimated that the average rise in the level of weekly full-time rates of wages between 1st September, 1939, and 1st June, 1941, was about 20 per cent. The official cost-of-living index figure rose by 29 per cent. between 1st September, 1939, and 31st May, 1941.

Mr. Cary: In view of the discrepancy between the general level of wages and the cost of living, may I ask whether the Government are giving serious consideration to a unified wage policy to which the cost of living will be permanently tied?

Mr. Bevin: I must have notice of that Question.

Mr. Shinwell: As my right hon. Friend has now indicated that wage levels are not commensurate with the increased cost of living, is any action going to be taken along these lines, because it indicates that the workers are still worse off?

Mr. Bevin: The Question deals with the percentage rise in the general level of wages, and does not refer to earnings or other factors.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

JOINT CONSULTATIVE MACHINERY.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent joint consultative machinery has now been established in industry engaged on war production; and the numbers of firms and employés affected?

Mr. Bevin: I have no record from which to give the statistics asked for.

Mr. Mander: In view of the great importance of machinery of this kind for overcoming production difficulties of all sorts now existing in factories, will the Minister not do everything he possibly can to urge the formation of such committees?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir, I have done that over and over again. I have asked an officer of my Department to take special steps to try and induce the setting-up of this machinery, but the setting-up of machinery by itself, unless there is the will to work it, is no good.

Mr. Mander: Surely, it is important to know to what extent the Minister has been successful in setting up the machinery. Will he not consider making inquiries on that point?

Mr. Bevin: I will make inquiries.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the Minister now say that, although there is need for joint consultative machinery of the kind referred to in the Question, there is a difficulty about the will to work it? If there is not a will to work it, is any action going to be taken to induce those who are reluctant to work it to do so?

Mr. Bevin: I have already indicated the steps I am taking.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is not the lack of will to work it shown by the employers and not by the men?

RESERVE OF LABOUR.

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the number of persons totally unemployed has fallen by 231,000 since his announcement that the reserve of labour was exhausted; and on what information this announcement was based?

Mr. Bevin: I assume my hon. Friend refers to the statement I made in January, that the reservoir of unemployed male labour was exhausted and that the problem of having to obtain a great recruitment of labour from non-essential occupations and from the unoccupied had to be faced. That was a statement of fact based on a careful analysis of the composition of the register of unemployed men. The fact that on the day of the count in May there were about 109,000 less men registered as wholly unemployed on that day than on the corresponding day in January does not affect the accuracy of my statement. Apart from those not suitable for industrial employment, the great majority on the register on any particular day are not a reservoir of unemployed labour but are merely passing from one job to another. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a statement relating to the February figures which demonstrates the position.

Sir H. Williams: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there is no difference between nothing and 109,000?

BOOT AND SHOE REPAIRERS.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Labour what complaints he has received from reception areas of the shortage of boot and shoe repairers for the increased population; and whether he can arrange for trained disabled men to be sent to these areas to supplement the present inadequate facilities?

Mr. Bevin: I have had no complaints from reception areas of a shortage of boot and shoe repairers for the increased population, but I am aware that there is a shortage of repairers generally; the possibility of training disabled persons for boot and shoe repairing is under consideration.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR FORCE (REGISTRATION).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give an assurance that, in exercising the powers contemplated by the International Labour Force Registration Order, proper provisions will be made that special consideration be given to families and dependants of Pioneers, soldiers and other persons engaged in work for refugee organisations?

Mr. Bevin: In these, as in other cases, the endeavour of my Department will be to apply as nearly as possible the same general principles as are applied in the case of registration of British subjects.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGHT BAKING.

Viscountess Astor: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the success of day baking in various towns and the dangers of night baking during air raids, he will now reconsider the question of night baking with a view to prohibiting it for at least six hours between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., except in cases of national emergency?

Mr. Bevin: I am advised that day baking, which is not a new development though it may lately have increased, cannot be relied upon to obviate the necessity for a considerable amount of night baking, at any rate under war conditions, and I see no reason to depart from the conclusions given in my reply of 1st May to the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson), which I reached after going fully into the matter with representatives of the operatives and employers and the Ministry of Food.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that, with a few possible exceptions, bakehouses are empty six hours out of the 24? In that case, if the Minister prohibited baking between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. the bakehouses would be closed only six hours, as is already the case. Will he bear in mind that both Coventry and Birmingham are doing this and that there is no shortage of bread?

Mr. Bevin: I went into the whole question very carefully. If you make an order, it has to be enforced, but with the blitz and various other conditions that have arisen in this war I cannot see my way to

making a universal order. The application made was not for hours between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., but between 11 and 4, but the transport facilities available at 4 do not seem to me to be such as would make it a workable proposition.

Viscountess Astor: If we can have it between 10 and 6, would the Minister be prepared to change that? He also said that in an emergency they would do anything necessary. Will he not reconsider the question again, as this is a really important matter?

Mr. Banfield: Will my right lion. Friend send this matter to the Minister without Portfolio with a view to seeing that this question is definitely settled?

Mr. Bevin: The machinery which exists in the trade between employers and trade unions makes it possible for them to send it to any Minister they desire. I was asked to deal with it under war conditions, and I came to the conclusion, having regard to the risks to the supply of bread, that I should not undertake to prohibit all-night baking under the conditions of air raids, etc.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

LOOTING.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that looting has become a serious menace and that during last year there were 4,584 cases of looting in London alone, and that the police cannot be expected to cope adequately with looters as well as carry out their many other duties, he will consider appointing a director of anti-looting measures?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The number of reported cases of looting has decreased considerably during the present year. This is no doubt to be attributed in part to the energetic action taken by the police. I have no reason to suppose that the police are unable to cope with the situation.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: In view of the fact that the figures of looting have increased this year, especially as in many cases offenders are members of public services, would the right hon. Gentleman


reconsider the matter, as undoubtedly the police are not able adequately to cope with this very serious problem, and in the circumstances I do not think they should be asked to?

Mr. Buchanan: Considering the whole situation and its ramifications, is it not a fact that, taken as a whole, looting has been surprisingly small?

Mr. Morrison: It is not the case that it has increased during the present year. That is contrary to the facts. If a director of anti-looting measures were appointed, he would be dependent on the police in any case, and I cannot see the point of it. Looting, as the Commissioner of Police observes, is an offence varying widely in magnitude and in the class of person by whom it is committed. It is often exceedingly difficult to bring an offender to justice, but I am satisfied that the police are tackling the problem with an increasing measure of success.

Mr. Messer: In view of the fact that many cases described as looting are nothing more than petty pilfering, would it not be better if the police were advised as to the course they should pursue when it is really looting?

Mr. Morrison: That runs the argument dangerously too far in the opposite direction. It should be a sacred instinct with the citizen that in the case of enemy attack he should not touch other people's property.

FIRE SERVICE.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Home Secretary what instructions have been issued with a view to altering the operation of the Business Premises Fire-watching Order so that it shall no longer be necessary for fire watchers to be provided outside business hours in daylight?

Mr. H. Morrison: As a purely temporary measure in present circumstances it has been suggested to appropriate authorities that, where the circumstances warrant, they should permit a considerable reduction in the number of persona performing fire-prevention duties at business premises in daylight after working hours. I do not consider that it would be in the public interest to disclose the exact extent of the relaxation suggested.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that considerable hardship is being caused to fire fighters and fire watchers by the fact that they receive no compensation when their clothes are destroyed or damaged in the course of carrying out their duties; and will he consider granting such compensation, or, alternatively, in view of the fact that air-raid precautions personnel are now being provided with serge uniforms, will he consider issuing the overalls which they now wear, or were going to wear, to fire watchers and fire fighters?

Mr. Morrison: A certain number of claims has been brought to my notice, and a circular will shortly be despatched to local authorities indicating the arrangements to be made for the payment of compensation for damage done to the clothing of enrolled members of their fire-prevention service while on duty. In common with other members of the public, fire fighters and fire watchers who are not members of a local authority's fire-prevention service may submit claims under the War Damage Act for war damage to clothing, and the Assistance Board are able to make advances and to give immediate help in cases of urgent need.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any information regarding the appointment of George Alberto Reed by the Red Cross Society to organise fire fighting in their numerous buildings; whether this man is an alien who was fined £ 10 at the Westminster police court for failing to register; and whether he still holds his appointment as organiser of fire fighting?

Mr. Morrison: My information is that this man was at birth a United States citizen. He came to this country as an infant, but as he has never been naturalised he is an alien. I have no information as to the circumstances of the appointment mentioned, which, I understand, has now been terminated.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the announcement of the development of radio telegraphy in relation to enemy air attack is being construed as lessening the need for fire-fighting services; and whether he will make the position clear?

Mr. Morrison: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for bringing this point to my notice. I was not aware that any such suggestion was being made, and it is clear that there would be no justification in present circumstances for any relaxation whatever in the measures for dealing with incendiary attacks.

THEFTS OF FOODSTUFFS (PENALTIES).

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the striking increase in the number of thefts of food stuffs, steps are contemplated greatly to increase the penalties imposed for such thefts?

Mr. H. Morrison: I would remind my lion. Friend that the maximum sentences provided by law for the kind of offences referred to are already very high. For instance, larceny from ships or docks or after breaking or entering a shop, warehouse or other premises is punishable by 14 years penal servitude. There is therefore no reason for any amendment of the law.

Mr. Bartlett: Is it not a fact, none the less, that many of the penalties which have been imposed have been ridiculously inadequate and that these are acts of treachery and should be treated as such? Could not the right hon. Gentleman order the judiciary to take a little stronger action?

Mr. Morrison: A communication was sent to the judiciary some time ago with regard to looting, but it still remains that the administration of justice is a local function. I cannot guarantee equality of administration of the law.

Mr. Thorne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Plaistow, when cases come before him, binds them over for six months, which has the desired effect?

DETAINEES.

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Home Secretary whether he will move for the appointment of a small Committee of the House to assist him in reviewing cases of detention under Regulation 18B?

Mr. H. Morrison: My predecessor and I have had the advantage of the assistance of very able Advisory Committees, which have acquired considerable experience of dealing with these cases, and

I do not think there would be any advantage in making the change suggested.

Sir I. Albery: In view of the fact that under this Regulation the right hon. Gentleman is empowered to arrest and detain Members of the House, is it not desirable to appoint such a Committee so that the House may share to some extent in the responsibility?

Mr. Morrison: That problem is not yet extensive, but in any case I should doubt whether it would be wise to appoint a Select Committee on a basis of party representation to perform what is essentially a judicial function.

Sir I. Albery: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are already in existence several Select Committees which work quite impartially along non-party lines?

Mr. Morrison: I make no suggestion to the contrary, but I think it would be really difficult if such a committee had to deal with the case of a Member of the House. It would be embarrassing to the Committee and would involve the situation that the Minister concerned would not be responsible to the House.

RACE MEETINGS (ROAD TRAFFIC).

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the heavy congestion of traffic and blocking of the roads on Wednesday, 18th June, at Newmarket; and what decision he has arrived at as to allowing race meetings bringing together large concourses of people to continue?

Mr. Tinker: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the race meeting known as the War Derby, held on Wednesday, 18th June, when 60,000 persons were present, over 5,000 motor-cars were used to take them there, and the congestion caused by these numerous vehicles held up an Army convoy for a considerable time; and will he take steps to prevent all race meetings, as they are having a detrimental effect on the war effort?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am informed that the attendance at the race meeting was less than half the number given by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), and that while traffic was slow on the approaches to the course, there


was no serious blocking of the roads. In reply to the other points raised by my hon. Friends, I would refer to the answer given on 24th June by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and to the answer which I gave on 3rd April last to my hon. Friends the Members for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) and Ipswich (Mr. Stokes).

Sir P. Harris: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see the danger that if a race meeting happened to synchronise with an invasion or a blitz, it might have serious results on the movement of our troops for defence purposes?

Mr. Morrison: That suggestion arises out of an allegation which is entirely untrue.

Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his point of view has nothing in common with the Labour party in my constituency, which passed a resolution calling upon him to do away with race meetings, which have an effect on our efforts to prosecute the war? There is no doubt that that is happening and, unless something is done, it will not be of advantage to the war effort.

Mr. Morrison: I have every respect for the views of the Labour party in my hon. Friend's constituency, but there are other sections of opinion. We have severely reduced racing facilities, and the point is now reached when we must either go on with the very modified programme or abolish racing altogether, which would involve rather serious considerations.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the Government's decision in this regard is flying in the face of decent public opinion? Even with the limited figures that he has furnished to the House, is it desirable to allow these insane and unseemly spectacles to continue?

Mr. Morrison: There is more than one public opinion about this. That is quite clear, as the House has indicated during this passage of question and answer. We will, of course, take that view into account. We have made a programme up to September, and it can be reviewed, but we are on the point whether an industry to which some importance is attached should be eliminated.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall take the first convenient opportunity to raise the matter.

EMERGENCY FEEDING CENTRES.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Home Secretary who is now to be the sole authority responsible for feeding arrangements in vulnerable areas?

Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food on 10th June.

Mr. Lindsay: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said there was now one authority in charge of these arrangements, and I should like to know whether that is so?

Mr. Morrison: I am not aware of that statement. If my hon. Friend had indicated in his Question who made the statement, I would have looked it up. If that is the line of argument, it would have been convenient if that had been indicated in the Question, because then one could have dealt with it specifically in its context. I cannot deal with the point now, because it is not before me. Broadly speaking, the Ministry of Health runs the rest and feeding centres. The Ministry of Food runs the communal feeding facilities. In so far as it is incidental to the rest and feeding centres, the Ministry of Health looks after the feeding there, but the communal feeding places are the function of the Ministry of Food. I cannot see anything shocking in that, although I appreciate that there can be two arguments upon the matter.

Mr. Lindsay: I thought my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was speaking with full Cabinet responsibility when he made his reply, otherwise I would have notified the right hon. Gentleman, but the statement is on record, and will he ask his right hon. Friend whether it means something new?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly I will. If my hon. Friend had let me know with whom he was debating, I would have checked up with my right hon. Friend. I did not know to which statement he was referring.

BILLETING.

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to state whether compensation, similar to that received by householders when they have suffered damage to their property


on account of receiving evacuees, will be granted to householders who have suffered damage as the result of compulsory billeting of war workers?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): Yes, Sir, and a circular, a copy of which I will send to my hon. Friend, will shortly be issued to local authorities on the subject.

BOMBED AREAS (HOLIDAY FACILITIES).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider a scheme for providing cheap holidays for Londoners and people from other heavily-bombed towns, who have suffered especial hardship as the result of air-raids, but are not covered by the Government evacuation scheme?

Mr. E. Brown: I have much sympathy with the people whom my hon. Friend has in mind, but I am afraid that a scheme such as he proposes would not be practicable. Apart from Civil Defence personnel, for whom special travelling facilities are being made available, the difficulty of defining the classes of person to be benefited would be great, and any general extension of facilities would conflict with the Government's policy of encouraging holidays at home in order to reduce pressure on transport.

REQUITIONED PREMISES (EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES).

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health to what extent occupation of premises prevents the requisitioning of part of such premises for educational purposes?

Mr. E. Brown: Where the circumstances warrant, I am. prepared to authorise the requisitioning of parts of occupied houses suitable for use for the education of evacuated children.

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health in what way the requisitioning of "The Beeches," Saffron Walden, was of doubtful legality; who gave permission for a private person to occupy it; who made the request for it to be de-requisitioned; and to whom the de-requisitioning notice has been sent?

Mr. Brown: I am aware of no reason to suppose that the original requisitioning of this house was of doubtful legality; but

it is considered to be doubtful if the requisitioning was still legally effective when the owner resumed possession, since, for one thing, the keys had been surrendered to him. On the owner's view, which has been accepted, that the requisitioning had terminated, he did not need permission to resume possession. The owner applied for the house to be derequisitioned, and notice of de-requisitioning has been sent to him.

Mr. Messer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious nature of this case? Is he aware that the Ministry permitted the premises to be de-requisitioned for educational purposes, that the education authority required them and that, by some means, the owner got possession of the keys and took possession of the house, and that, as a consequence, the education authority cannot now use the place as a school and children may have to be transferred 100 miles away, with the possibility that they may all be brought back to London by their parents? Is not this a serious state of affairs which should receive attention?

Mr. Brown: The matter is very complicated. I understand that the authorities are making other arrangements.

Mr. Messer: Do they not consist of transferring the children 100 miles away, and may that not mean that they will be brought back to London?

Mr. Brown: I understand that, at a meeting with the parents last Monday, the impression formed by the education authorities was that the parents agreed to the children being transferred.

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL (ADAPTATION).

Mr. James Hall: asked the Minister of Health the total cost of the work of adapting the out-patients department of a certain hospital for children for the decontamination of blister-gas cases and provision of air-raid protection for the personnel?

Mr. E. Brown: The amount approved for the adaptation as a first-aid post of the out-patients' department, to which I understand my hon. Friend is referring, including the provision of certain arrangements for gas cleansing, was £884, and a sum of £140 was approved in connection with the erection of a brick surface shelter


for the personnel. Further works have recently been approved in order to improve the gas cleansing facilities and the protection of the post, but the statement of final costs of these works has not yet been received in the Department.

Mr. Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was estimated that the work cost £24,000, and that other first-aid posts are being adapted in the same grandiose manner; and can he not prevent this wasteful expenditure of public money?

Mr. Brown: I should prefer to see the full statement of costs before I could accept the hon. Member's view of the matter.

Mr. Hall: I am ready to put another Question when I get further information.

Mr. Brown: I will let the hon. Member know.

EVACUATED CHILDREN (CHEAP RAILWAY FARES, PARENTS).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he will make arrangements whereby London parents, whose children have been evacuated to a considerable distance, such as Cornwall, should be able to obtain, at least once every six months, a cheap railway pass?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Colonel Llewellin): Arrangements already exist under which parents whose children are evacuated from London or other evacuating areas can obtain railway tickets once a month at special cheap fares to visit them. Arrangements are now being made that such tickets available for one period of eight days will be issuable to parents taking their summer holiday with their children provided that they have secured accommodation in the reception area. An announcement will shortly be made as to the method of obtaining such tickets.

Mr. Strauss: Is it not a fact that at the moment the cheap tickets are available only for three days and many parents wish to spend their week's holiday with their children, whom, in some cases, they have not seen for a year?

Colonel Llewellin: That is a matter on which I thought I had done rather well. When I went to the Ministry I found that

that was what was happening, and we have extended the period from three days to eight days to cover that point.

Mr. Charles Williams: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inform parents of the almost complete absence of accommodation in many of these areas?

Colonel Llewellin: That was why I made the proviso that they should make certain that there was accommodation in the area to which they wished to go.

DEPUTY REGIONAL COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Home Secretary whether the proposed new Deputy Commissioners, one of whom may be responsible for pre-air-raid preparations are to be appointed by himself and are responsible to his Ministry; and whether the team of experts and officials under the senior regional officer of the Ministry of Health will work under the general directions of such Deputy Commissioners?

Mr. H. Morrison: The new Deputy Regional Commissioners will, like the present Commissioners and deputies, be appointed by Royal Warrant and the Minister of Home Security will be, as heretofore, generally responsible for the action taken by the Regional Commissioners and their deputies. The Regional Commissioners will remain responsible. for the general co-ordination of departmental measures in connection with Civil Defence and will allocate duties to their deputies as may be found most convenient in each region. In so far as duties relating to pre-air-raid preparations are allotted to a Deputy Commissioner he will have a special interest in matters for which the Ministry of Health is responsible and the senior regional officers of that Department and their staffs will be closely associated with him for the purpose.

Mr. Lindsay: Do I understand from that that the Deputy Commissioner who is in charge of the pre-blitz arrangements will have the general supervision of the Ministry of Health officials, and will he report to the Commissioner or to my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Morrison: The Regional Commissioner is responsible. It is a matter of domestic arrangement as to how the Regional Commissioner and Deputy


Regional Commissioners best use the staff, but I contemplate that one will take fire fighting and fire prevention and other Civil Defence matters and that the other will take over those services relating to blitzed conditions for which the Ministry of Health is largely responsible, and that he will work in close cooperation with officers of the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Thorne: Do I understand from the answer that the local authority are unable to act except with the permission of the Regional Commissioner?

Mr. Morrison: No, they have powers imposed upon them, and we certainly wish them to act under their specific powers in every case.

NORTH END HOUSE, FULHAM.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Head-lam: asked the Minister of Health how many refugees are in North End House and what proportion of them are children; what is the annual cost of renting the premises for the refugees and their attendants: what is the annual cost of feeding them by contract; what are the wages of the attendants; and how many attendants are employed there?

Mr. E. Brown: There are 273 adults and 77 children under the age of 14. The rental compensation under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, is estimated at £3,040 per annum. In addition, a payment at the rate of £800 a year is made by the Ministry of Works and Buildings to the owners in respect of the heating of the premises. A contribution in lieu of rates, which is estimated at £2,150, will also be payable to the local authority. On the present basis of expenditure, the annual cost of feeding the evacuees and staff is estimated at £17,400. The number of staff employed is 10, and their wages amount to £2,000 per annum. In addition, arrangements have been made with the London County Council whereby they undertake the medical care of the evacuees. Women's Voluntary Services also do welfare work for the evacuees.

Sir C. Headlam: Can my right hon. Friend explain how he justifies the bringing of evacuee women and children into London at a time when he is doing his best to get women and children in London

to go into the country and is advising them to stay there?

Mr. Brown: First of all, I do not bring them to London. I would point out that these are evacuees from the Rock of Gibraltar. There are some thousands of them, about 60 per cent. do not talk our language, and they have entirely different habits. I do not think that there has been a more difficult job in the whole war than the successful management of this problem.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Would not these evacuees be of more use in the country, and would they not certainly be safer there?

Mr. Brown: The answer to that lies in the explanation I have already given, that we are not dealing with people talking our language or having our habits. These people have been brought thousands of miles from their homes, and we are responsible for them, and I say that anybody who surveys the difficulties of the problem and knows the facts would say that this problem has been handled wisely and well.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW POLICE STATIONS, TORQUAY AND TOTNES.

Mr. Lambert: asked the Home. Secretary whether he is aware that his Department agreed with the standing joint committee, in July, 1940, to postpone the building of two new police stations at Torquay and Totnes; that he has since directed the standing joint committee to proceed without delay with the erection of a new police station at Torquay; that the Devonshire County Council has three times deprecated the diversion of labour and raw material for such a purpose, when thousands of people in Plymouth and district, rendered homeless by enemy action, are without proper shelter and accommodation; and will he reconsider this question?

Mr. H. Morrison: As my hon. Friend is aware, I have given the most careful consideration to this question, and it has been fully discussed at a meeting which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State had with representatives of the County Council. The building schemes of the Devon Standing Joint Committee were reviewed after the outbreak of war, and the decision was reached


that with some modifications only the new stations at Torquay and Totnes should be proceeded with. In each case the existing premises are old and inadequate for the increased number of personnel—the police war reserve and special constables —using them. The conditions in these stations are not, I am advised, conducive to efficient working, and I am satisfied that the proposals as now modified are essential to the efficiency of the police force. The Government, after taking full account of the situation, decided that in the allocation of labour and material for building purposes due provision must be made for essential police buildings.

Mr. Lambert: Can. my right hon. Friend tell me why he persists in ignoring the opinion of the democratically-elected Devon County Council in this matter?

Mr. Morrison: Because I do not agree with them. Perhaps I may add that this is part of a programme in which a great many things were not done before the war, and I am not aware that similar arguments were raised then. In the case of Totnes, the position is that all the available space is overcrowded. Cells are used as stores, and a narrow cell corridor is used by two clerks as an office, and 'they and their chairs and desks have to be moved before a prisoner can be taken to or from the cells. Senior police officers are scattered at points away from the station, and this interferes considerably with the efficient working of the police. There are somewhat similar problems at Torquay. In time of war it is important, I think, that the police force should have decent conditions under which to do their work efficiently.

Viscountess Astor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he will go to Torquay and look around, he will find premises there which could be taken by the police for their use?

Mr. Morrison: They would not be suitable.

Mr. Granville: Is not the discomfort in the police station which the right hon. Gentleman has described considerably less than the discomfort which refugees are suffering as the result of air-raid action?

Mr. Morrison: With respect, my hon. Friend is misrepresenting the position. I did not refer to personal discomforts, but to conditions which make it impossible for the police efficiently to discharge their duties.

Viscountess Astor: We need all the available building materials and workers for Plymouth.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAMING CLUBS, LONDON (POLICE ACTION).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information regarding the police raid on a gaming club in Rupert Street, and, in connection with the remarks made by the magistrate, Mr. Fry, about the man Morris Rosen, will he say how many police raids have been made on gaming and other clubs for the past 12 months; and what action he intends taking against gaming clubs?

Mr. H. Morrison: The club in question was entered by the police on a warrant on 20th June, 1941. Gaming was going on, and the principal (Morris Rosen) and eight frequenters were arrested. The frequenters were bound over, and Rosen was fined £100 with £15 costs. Since 1st July, 1940, 133 gaming and other clubs have been raided in the Metropolitan Police District. The police give constant attention to gaming clubs and take action when evidence is obtainable.

Mr. Thorne: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is a pity that these people have not something else to do?

Mr. Morrison: I quite agree, and I am sure that the police will do everything they can in the matter.

Mr. Shinwell: While it is not the function of the right hon. Gentleman to interfere with the duties of magistrates, may I ask whether it is not possible to take some more harsh action against these people? Does it not seem to be a scandal that they should escape by being bound over or by paying a fine? Can he not send them to a long term of imprisonment for this offence during war-time?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend knows that the administration of the law is a matter for the courts, but I will consider the representation which he has just made.

Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the question of making an Order in Council under the Emergency Powers Act to deal with this growing scandal?

Mr. Morrison: My impression is that the law is adequate, but I will look into the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health how many cases have been dealt with under the applications that have been made for supplementary old-age pensions under the Determination of Needs Act, which came into operation the first week in June; and the average amount given?

Mr. E. Brown: Between 1st May, when the Amendment Regulations were made, and 6th June, the latest date for which figures are available, approximately 82,500 applications for supplementary pensions were received. It is not possible to state precisely how many of these applications were made solely in consequence of the new legislation, but a rough estimate is that they were about one half of the total. During the period referred to, supplementary pensions were granted in about 63,000 cases, and found not to be payable in about 8,500 cases, 11,000 applications remaining under consideration. Particulars regarding the average amount of supplementary pensions gransions granted are not available. Statistics showing the effect of the new Regulations will, however, be collected and made available in due course.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Do people have to apply for the supplementary pensions?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, they have to make application.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORIES (DE-RATING).

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Health whether a factory, which has been entitled to the benefit of de-rating in respect of local rates, will continue to have that benefit if closed on account of concentration or circumstances of war, and is used for purposes of storage?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir, but having regard to decided cases in the courts, I

think it is unlikely that the rateable value of premises which have ceased to be used as a factory and, in so far as they continue in beneficial occupation at all, fall to be assessed as premises for storage of the machinery, would exceed their value as an industrial hereditament with the benefit of de-rating. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. F. F. Davies, of 148, Brooklyn Road, Cheltenham, who has been discharged from the Army owing to arthritis of the right and left knee and whose doctor has certified that he never suffered from arthritis or any form of rheumatism prior to enlistment, has been refused a pension because it is alleged that the arthritic condition is in no way due to his military service; and whether he will give the names and qualifications of the medical officers he consulted about this man and arrange for him to be granted a pension?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The advice which I have received does not support the claim advanced on behalf of Mr. Davies. I am, however, arranging for him to be examined by a Ministry medical board and for the case to be further investigated. I am not prepared to disclose the names of the officials who have advised on the case.

Mr. Lipson: While thanking my right hon. Friend for being willing to reconsider the case, may I ask whether he thinks it right that a decision should be arrived at without knowing on whose authority it was made, particularly in view of the man's claim that, since he left the Army, he has received no medical examination whatever?

Sir W. Womersley: I know who examined the man, and I am satisfied with the decision.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is it not a fact that many men who never before sought public assistance are forced to do so, as a result of such treatment?

Sir W. Womersley: I do not know.

Mr. MacMillan: The Minister should know of some cases, because I sent particulars of them to him.

Captain Profumo: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will grant to ex-Service men the statutory right of appeal in respect of decisions regarding pensions awards made by him?

Captain Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider setting up independent appeals tribunals to hear war pensions claims?

Sir W. Womersley: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friends to the answer given to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) on 23rd April, a copy of which I am sending to each of them.

Sir I. Fraser: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many citizens who have a claim on the Government arising out of this war—including for example the conscientious objector who wishes to establish his right not to enter the Armed Forces—are allowed an appeal, while this is denied to the men who have served, even though so important a matter as a life pension is at stake?

Sir W. Womersley: As my hon. and gallant Friend has given me notice of his intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment, we had better leave the argument until then.

Mr. De la Bère: What my hon. Friend said was quite true.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CONSTITUTION.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether the proposal to concentrate the whole of the Government of India in India itself after the war is being associated with any other political or constitutional proposals for the future Government of India; and whether special consultations on such proposals are now taking place, or are likely to take place, in the near future?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): The hon. Member is presumably referring to a recent description by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for India of the nature of Dominion Status, which is the declared goal of

British policy in India. There has been no new proposal such as is implied in the first part of the Question, and the remainder of the Question therefore does not arise.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, in existing circumstances, a fresh and vigorous attempt should be made to meet the very serious situation which is developing in India; and will he therefore at least indicate when he can make some pronouncement on the matter?

Sir A. Knox: Is it not undesirable to raise this question during the war, in which the Indian troops are doing very well indeed? We do not want to raise dissension now.

Mr. Sorensen: Do not many of the Indian troops want a vigorous measure of self-government?

SHIPPING DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of our shipping losses, the policy respecting Indian shipping and shipbuilding yards will be reconsidered with a view to considerable expansion?

Mr. Amery: Inquiries are in progress as to the earliest date when production of ships in India would be possible. Meanwhile, with my support and that of the Government of India, certain provisional steps have been taken. The hon. Member will appreciate that the question is one of the best use, for the purposes of the war, of the supplies of machinery, material and personnel that can be made available.

Mr. Sorensen: While appreciating the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he has in mind any long-term policy for the development of Indian shipbuilding, especially in view of the shortage of ships?

Mr. Amery: I am concerned at the moment with the short-term policy, which is what is possible and desirable during the war.

Earl Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity, if possible, to make some announcement, so far as it is in the public interest to do so, of how far the very important scheme of Indian shipbuilding is proceeding?

Mr. Amery: I will do so.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that no long-term considerations will prevent the application of the necessary short-term policy?

Mr. Amery: I can give that assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the industrial insurance companies' canvassers are bringing pressure to bear upon domestic and other servants to take out insurance policies by making statements to the effect that the inclusion of board and lodging as part wages makes them liable to Income Tax; and whether he will issue a short statement for the benefit of the small Income Tax payer?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am not aware of the practice referred to in the first part of my hon. Friend's Question. If my hon. Friend will forward me any particulars he has on the subject, I will gladly consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND ACT.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in conformity with the Government's policy with regard to obligations to pay sums free of Income Tax, as expressed in the Finance Bill, as amended, he will take steps to amend Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939, so as to reduce the deductions therein prescribed by nine-twenty-ninths during any year of assessment, the standard rate of Income Tax for which is 10s. in the £.

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The deductions referred to are not analogous to tax-free payments; they are simply contributions which are not allowable as a deduction for Income Tax purposes to the contributors.

Sir J. Mellor: Seeing that hon. Members get no relief from Income Tax in respect of the amount deducted, and the trustees of the fund do not bear any of it, is not this indeed an example of the mischief under the present circumstances of tax-

free payments, which have been so eloquently denounced by my right hon. Friend?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, I am afraid 1 cannot agree with my hon. Friend. There is no question of contributors undertaking to bear the Income Tax burden of the fund, for the fund is not liable to Income Tax in respect of contributions.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIAN LOANS (REPAYMENT).

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury took into account, when requisitioning recently for repayment the dated Indian loans, the principle he has laid down that there should be no unexpected infraction of an agreement between lenders and borrowers calculated to under mine the contractual basis upon which a borrower has invited the public to sub scribe a loan?

Sir K. Wood: The securities referred to were acquired by the Treasury at the market price, and there was no infraction of an agreement between lenders and borrowers.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

MINISTRY'S STAFF (HOUSEWIVES).

Sir H. Morris-Jones: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will give an assurance that there are on the staff of the Ministry practical housewives who have access to the Minister for purposes of advice on the rationing of food commodities?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): If my hon. Friend wishes to know whether my Noble Friend has the benefit of the advice of practical housewives where and when it is needed, the answer is "Yes, Sir."

PERISHABLE PRODUCTS (MARKETING).

Sir H. Morris-Jones: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will curtail the often un necessary distant transport of fruit and vegetables by a system of improved local marketing of perishable products, with special reference to North Wales?

Major Lloyd George: Consideration is being given, in consultation with the agricultural and trade interests concerned, to the question of eliminating unnecessary transport in the distribution of fresh fruit and vegetables and of improving, where possible, arrangements for local marketing. My hon. Friend may rest assured that the case of North Wales will not be overlooked.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that apart from North Wales these fruits and vegetables are sent great distances, with great loss of time and damage to perishable foods, and will he treat the matter as a matter of some urgency?

Major Lloyd George: Consultations are taking place on that very point at the present time, and everything possible will be done.

TOMATOES.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his staff have furnished any reports on the reason for the disappearance of tomatoes from the wholesale markets since the control of selling prices became operative; whether he is aware that recognised retailers cannot secure supplies to sell to the consumers; and what action he proposes to take with regard to the unusual increase in direct purchasing of tomatoes from growers by hotel and restaurant caterers?

Major Lloyd George: I know of no evidence to justify the statement that tomatoes have disappeared from wholesale markets since the introduction of the Maximum Prices Order last Sunday. The information in the possession of my Department is that tomatoes have been reaching the markets in considerable quantities but owing to the reduction of price the demand has increased greatly and the arrivals have been cleared quickly. In these circumstances, it may be that certain retailers have been unable to obtain supplies but there should be increasing quantities coming on to the markets in the next few weeks. With regard to the last part of the Question, if my hon. Friend will supply me with any evidence in support of his statement, I shall be glad to have the matter investigated.

Mr. Walkden: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that this very morning at

6 o'clock in a London market men were queueing up for over an hour, and that the only supply after this vigil was one 12-lb. box of tomatoes, while in the Lea Valley area, where tomatoes are grown, motor-cars and motor lorries belonging to the black buccaneers were yesterday taking away tomatoes wholesale to other parts of the country; and what action is he going to take?

Major Lloyd George: If the hon. Member will give me detailed information of such cases, I shall be glad to have them investigated.

Mr. Thorne: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that an hon. Member only this morning saw a number of tomatoes on a stall and that the stallholder simply said that he could not have tomatoes unless he also bought a cucumber?

Major Lloyd George: "Conditional sales" are an offence. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman has not reported the matter. If he will report it, action will be taken.

CLOSING OF SHOPS, BOLTON.

Mr. T. Smith: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the proposal to close food shops in Bolton for the whole of the coming week on the occasion of the Bolton wakes and of the indignation aroused locally in view of the fact that workers who have responded to the Government's appeal to forego their holidays will be remaining in Bolton this year during Wakes Week, and, anticipating that they and their families will have difficulty in obtaining food supplies, what action he proposes to take?

Major Lloyd George: My attention has been drawn to the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers. I understand that the Bolton Chamber of Trade has recommended the special closing of shops on Monday and Tuesday only and I hope that this recommendation will be accepted by food traders generally. It will afford an opportunity of relaxation for shop assistants badly in need of it but will avoid the inconvenience to the public resulting from the closing of food shops for the whole week. Communications have been sent to the bodies representative of the trades concerned, and I have no doubt that they will receive a satisfactory response.

Mr. Rhys Davies: It is not true, therefore, to suggest that the Bolton shops are going to be closed for a week?

Major Lloyd George: I very much hope that they will respond favourably to the representations made, as I think they will.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

STERILISING PLANT AND PORTABLE SPRAYERS.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made in supplying county agricultural commit- tees with sterilising plants and portable sprayers for the use of small growers unable to provide them for themselves?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Arrangements have been made for the supply of 150 portable sprayers and one sterilising plant in response to applications received from county war agricultural executive committees. Delivery to the committees is in progress and should be completed soon after 30th June.

APPLE WINDFALLS.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether arrangements will be made this year for the women's institutes to collect apple windfalls and make them into apple rings?

Mr. Hudson: This matter is now under consideration.

MAN-POWER.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of his announcement of the policy of additional man-power being made available for work on the land, he can now make some statement specifying the manner in which this is to be accomplished?

Mr. Hudson: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service has agreed to make available some 10,000 men for work under agricultural executive committees. About 3,000 Italian prisoners of war will also be arriving shortly in this country for similar work. The additional individual labour required by private fanners will have to be obtained mainly from the Women's Land Army; but in addition to the men that he is to make

available for work with committees my right hon. Friend has agreed to endeavour to identify a certain number of men with previous agricultural experience now in other occupations whom it may prove possible to transfer to fill vacancies on individual farms.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the shortage of skilled manpower on farms is more acute than ever, and will he do something to get into the heads of the War Office and the Ministry of Labour the necessity for skilled men not only not to be taken from, but to be returned to, the farms to secure the maximum output from the land?

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Agriculture, what appointments, during the last six months, the Staffordshire War Agricultural Committee have made to the office of labour manager; how many members he has recruited for the Staffordshire land corps; and what arrangements have been made to supply workers from this to farmers wanting assistance for hoeing the sugar-beet crop?

Mr. Hudson: The Staffordshire War Agricultural Executive Committee have made two appointments to the post of Labour Officer in the last six months, the first officer having recently resigned. I have no information as to the number of persons enrolled in volunteer land corps in the county, but I understand that active steps to recruit volunteers are now being taken.

Mr. Mander: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to give the names of the officers?

Mr. Hudson: I will find out and let the hon. Member know; I do not know.

Mr. Mander: Is he not aware that there is a great deal of uncertainty in the county as to who really is responsible for providing the necessary labour, and that there is uncertainty as to who holds these appointments, and will he state specifically the names?

Mr. Hudson: I will find out.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is it not a fact that any letter addressed to the committee would be transferred to the proper officer?

Mr. Hudson: It is.

FARMER'S EJECTION, BIRDSALL.

Major Braithwaite: asked the Minister of Agriculture, on what grounds Mr. Mason, of Wharram Percy, Malton, was forcibly ejected from his farm at Birds all, on Saturday, 14th June; how much land was in cultivation on this farm; what stock was on the farm; what order made by the war agriculture committee Mr. Mason has not carried out; and to whom the farm has been let, and at what rental?

Mr. Hudson: Mr. Mason was ejected from his holding for failing to comply with an order of the East Riding War Agricultural Executive Committee directing him to give up possession of the holding on 15th May, in consequence of the termination of his tenancy under Regulation 62 of the Defence Regulations. All the land on the holding was under cultivation, but a considerable acreage was unsatisfactory. The stock on the holding, which is 880 acres in extent, comprised about 400 sheep, seven horses, 10 cows and 20 store cattle. Some of these were not Mr. Mason's property. Orders of the committee giving directions to Mr. Mason as to manuring the land were not complied with. The farm has been let to Mr. Lister at a rent of £200 a year rising to £400 a year. I naturally regret the necessity for the action taken in this case, but I am satisfied that in the national interest no other course was open to the East Riding War Agricultural Executive Committee.

Major Braithwaite: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House if the new tenant is in possession of Mr. Mason's stock, implements, crops and furniture?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir. But I am quite sure that the war agricultural committee are taking steps to see that the farm is properly cultivated.

Major Braithwaite: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is fair that the war agricultural committee should inspect a man's farm as late in the year as 10th May, and then turn him out in a season when nobody else can get any further production, and thus denude the industry of five skilled agriculturists?

Mr. Hudson: I cannot accept the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion. I have personally investigated this case on more

than one occasion, and I am satisfied that the war agricultural committee were fully satisfied that if they had not taken. such action there would have been a bad effect on food production. I am not prepared to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Granville: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether this farmer was actually evicted from his home, and further whether he was given an opportunity to continue to work in some capacity upon this farm?

Mr. Hudson: He has certainly been evicted from the house, because it is ' required for the new tenant. As regards what he is going to do in the future, I do not know.

COUNTY WAR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES.

Sir William Wayland: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will instruct county agricultural war executive committees that it is undesirable that any member of the committee shall purchase, or secure directly or indirectly, a financial interest in any farm which has been relinquished or sold voluntarily or compulsorily by a tenant or owner by reason of his inability to comply with orders served upon him by an agricultural war executive committee?

Mr. Hudson: I am not aware that there is a need for the issue of any such instructions.

Sir W. Wayland: If I send the Minister specific evidence of a case, will he personally inquire into it?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir, certainly.

FOXES, HIGHGATE.

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that foxes from Ken Wood, in the North of London, are making havoc in poultry runs in Highgate, 45 birds being killed in one run; and whether, in the interests of food production, he will call on the local authorities concerned to take immediate remedial measures?

Mr. Hudson: I have ascertained that the London County Council have been aware of the presence of foxes in the district and have instituted searches in the woods with a view to destroying any that may be found. Two have been killed up to date.

Sir P. Hurd: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will make further inquiry, because local information is that there are five of these earths, and unless they are speedily dealt with we shall have the whole district overrun with small foxes?

Mr. Hudson: I think that is a matter for the London County Council.

Sir P. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend make representations?

Oral Answers to Questions — CLOTHES RATIONING.

Mr. Tinker: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulty of mineworkers in getting pit: drawers now that coupons have to be given for them; that, in some collieries, they have to be renewed every six to eight weeks; and will he consider making some provisions by which mineworkers can get them without coupons?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): As stated by my right hon. Friend in reply to Questions on 24th June, discussions are now proceeding about special occupational needs of this kind.

Sir J. Lamb: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give any information as to when these discussions will be completed, because great hardship is being caused in many industries by delay in making known the result?

Captain Waterhouse: I cannot say when the discussions will be completed, but I can say that they are being very actively carried on with both the T.U.C. and the miners' organisations.

Sir J. Lamb: In view of the tact that the discussions cannot be completed at once, will it be possible in some cases to give instructions for the articles to be supplied and a record kept of the transactions?

Captain Waterhouse: I will take note of that request, but I do not think it will be possible.

Sir William Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any arrangements have been made with regard to the issuing of coupons to artistes requiring a supply of clothes for new theatrical productions?

Captain Waterhouse: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has invited the theatrical industry to set up a representative committee to consider all applications for coupons in connection with theatrical productions and to advise the Board of Trade as to the issues which should be made.

Sir W. Davison: Is this committee in operation, as the matter is one of considerable urgency?

Captain Waterhouse: Yes, the decision is now operative. The committee is being set up.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DAMAGE ACT (CHATTELS SCHEME).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of commission paid to head offices of insurance companies for handling business under the chattels scheme; and what amount of any such sum is being paid to the insurance agents for actually transacting this business with the clients?

Captain Waterhouse: It is not intended to pay remuneration on a commission basis to the companies and underwriters acting as agents of the Board of Trade under the insurance schemes instituted by Part II of the War Damage Act, 1941, or to intermediaries. As in the case of the commodity insurance scheme, the Board's agents have agreed to accept payment so calculated as to do no more than defray their expenses for the work done.

Mr. Davies: When that sum is paid over to the insurance companies and underwriters, will the Board of Trade see that a sum is paid to the agents who have actually transacted this business, some of whom are getting nothing at all?

Captain Waterhouse: Presumably that would be one of the points that our agents took into consideration when assessing the sum they ask us to pay.

Mr. Davies: Is it not for the Board of Trade to see that this money paid to the insurance companies should go to the people who do the job?

Captain Waterhouse: The Board of Trade have made the insurance companies their agents, and I think we must trust the insurance companies to pay their agents.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT FACTORIES (UNAUTHORISED VISITORS).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he is aware that an unauthorised person was able to enter an important aeroplane factory, the name of which has been supplied to him, spent many hours walking round looking at the various processes, and leave, without any challenge; and will he take immediate steps to see that no unauthorised person is able to enter such a factory in future?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Mr. Montague): Within two or three hours of the Minister's hearing of this incident, a special Security Officer was on the spot carrying out an investigation. He has now submitted his report, and the Minister is considering, as a matter of urgency, the steps to be taken to prevent any similar incidents in the future.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the report of this incident has caused alarm to many people? Can we have an assurance that he is going to take immediate steps to prevent similar action in any aircraft production factory anywhere?

Mr. Montague: Yes, we are fully aware of the urgency of the question and the alarm caused by the matter. The hon. Member may have my assurance that we shall be on the spot, in this matter, as fast as possible.

Mr. Garro Jones: Has it not been possible for strangers to gain access to premises before, and have no adequate measures already been established?

Mr. Montague: The problem is a very difficult one and involves the question of waste of time for labour, etc., but we are aware that this is an exceptional case, and we are dealing with it in exceptional manner. We shall take every precaution to see that this kind of thing does not happen to any extensive or undesirable extent.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND (SURPLUS PRODUCE).

Mr. Lathan: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister without Portfolio whether he has any statement to make in regard to

the question of dealing with the surplus produce of Australia and New Zealand during the war?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have been in consultation on this subject with His Majesty's Governments in the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand respectively, and I and the other Ministers concerned have had the advantage of oral discussion with the Prime Minister of Australia and more recently with the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Statements of principles have now been agreed upon as regards cooperative arrangements for dealing with the surplus produce of the two Dominions for the period of the war. Two White Papers, embodying the agreed terms, will be available to Members in the Vote Office after Questions.

Mr. Lathan: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the encouraging information that he has given, may I ask whether he contemplates a continuance of beneficial co-operation after the war?

Mr. Greenwood: Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions and I are already in consultation with the Dominions on post-war questions with a view to continuing cooperation.

Sir J. Lamb: Does this include agricultural produce and food?

Mr. Greenwood: Certainly—mainly agricultural produce.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLLIERY EXPLOSION, KIVETON PARK.

Mr. E. Dunn: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make any statement with regard to the explosion which has taken place at the Kiveton Park Colliery?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I regret having to announce that an explosion took place at Kiveton Park Colliery at 10.30 a.m. on 24th June. The accident occurred in. the Barnsley seam. Five men were burned, two of whom have since died. The ignition of gas is believed to be due to the fracture of a deputy's flame lamp. Investigation is proceeding. I feel sure


that the House will want to join me in sending a message of condolence with the bereaved and injured in this sad occurrence.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Might I ask the Lord Privy Seal to state the forthcoming Business of the House?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): Today, after passing the Consolidated Fund Bill, we shall consider the Goods and Services Bill. I hope it will be possible to take the Report and Third Reading, as well as the Committee stage of this Bill. Then we shall proceed with the next three Orders on the Paper.

The Business for subsequent Sitting Days will be as follows:

On the First Sitting Day—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill; Second Reading of the Repair of War Damage Bill and of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill, as well as the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolutions.

On the Second Sitting Day—Committee stage of the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) (Amendment) Bill.

On the Third Sitting Day—Supply (12th Allotted Day) —Committee. A Debate will take place on Propaganda.

Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give favourable consideration, when arranging future Business, to proposals which have been submitted through the usual channels, from more than one quarter, for a Debate on food production? Will he also consider whether it would not be convenient at the same time, by taking it on the Adjournment, to have a Debate on food distribution, so that the connected questions of food production and food distribution may be considered at the same time? I do not ask for an immediate answer, bur only for consideration.

Mr. Attlee: Yes, we will certainly try to meet the wishes of the House.

Mr. Mander: In regard to the Debate on propaganda, on which Vote will it take place? Will it be on the Vote for the Ministry of Information, and, if so, will it be possible to discuss propaganda in wider aspects than would normally be

possible on the Vote for the Ministry of Information?

Mr. Attlee: It is intended to take it on the Votes for the Ministry of Information and Foreign Affairs. I understand that that will give scope for a full Debate.

Mr. Buchanan: I asked the Prime Minister last week to see that an important Bill dealing with Scotland was brought in. This Bill affects people who have been bombed out of their houses. There is no mention of it in the forthcoming Business. It is a terribly important matter for poor people. A Bill has been passed in England in connection with this matter, and the law needs clarification in Scotland. Could we have a statement at an early date as to when the law in Scotland on this matter will be brought up to date?

Mr. Attlee: Yes. The Bill has not yet been presented, but the matter is in hand, and we hope to take action very shortly.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the law in Scotland is in a state of confusion, and that different legal decisions are given? In view of that, could we not have the Bill brought forward as quickly as possible?

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member is perfectly right, and, as I have said, the matter is in hand.

Mr. Granville: If the Prime Minister, as he said quite recently, sees no objection to a Debate in the near future on war production generally, when is the House likely to have an opportunity to discuss this matter in its widest aspects?

Mr. Attlee: We have noted the desire of the House, and arrangements will be made for such a Debate, but it will necessarily depend upon other Business when it takes place.

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House, the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill may be considered in Committee immediately after the Bill has been read a Second time."— [Mr. Attlee.]

BILL PRESENTED.

PHARMACY AND MEDICINES,

"to amend the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, to prohibit certain advertisements relating to medical matters, and to amend the law relating to medicines,"

presented by Mr. Ernest Brown, supported by Sir John Anderson, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. T. Johnston, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Peake; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1936.

Report presented by the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons under Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Act, That they have taken into consideration a representation which has been made to the Secretary of State by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, that they desire to obtain Parliamentary powers to amend their Superannuation Scheme, as specified in a Schedule to the Report, to be operative in Scotland and elsewhere, and that it is expedient that such powers should be conferred by one enactment by reason of the fact that in relation to such matters it is necessary to provide for the uniform regulation of the affairs of the Company whose undertaking is operative in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and have decided that the said powers would more properly be obtained by the promotion of a Private Bill than by the promotion of a Private Bill and of a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Greenock Port and Harbours Order Confirmation Bill,

Cannock Urban District Council Bill, without Amendment.

Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — GOODS AND SERVICES (PRICE CONTROL) [MONEY].

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereafter referred to as 'the new Act') to make further provision to prevent excessive prices being charged for goods and excessive charges being made for performing services in relation to goods (including hiring and subjecting to a process) and to amend the Prices of Good Act, 1939, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade under the new Act and any increase in the expenses of the Board under the Prices of Goods Act, 1939, which is attributable to the passing of the new Act.

Resolution agreed to.

GOODS AND SERVICES (PRICE CONTROL) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[COLONEL CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to fix maximum prices for goods.)

Mr. Doland: I beg to move, in page I, line 7, after "may, "to insert:
after consultation with the appropriate trade organisation.
I move this Amendment in the absence of the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate). Not only do I consider this a most necessary safeguard for traders, particularly before the fixing of maximum prices under this Measure, but I attach special importance to the phrase "appropriate trade organisation." As the President of the Board of Trade is aware, there are trade organisations which cover not only a multitude of sins, but a multitude of trades. While it may be presumed that the trade organisation mentioned in the Amendment might mean, for instance, the National Chamber of Trade or the London and Suburban Traders'

Federation, I hope that it will be interpreted as meaning the actual organisation representing the trade to which a specified Order may refer. For instance, in the case of Orders relating to men's tailoring, there is the Merchant Tailors' Association just as, in the case of women's wear, there would be a particular trade organisation concerned with those goods.
In many instances where it is a case of officials of a trade organisation being brought into consultation with the Board of Trade, it is usual to consult the chair man or president or secretary of the main organisation or, shall I call it, the parent organisation. I am asking the President of the Board of Trade to particularise in this respect. Sub-section (2) of this Clause emphasises the necessity for this Amendment. It is an elaboration of the proposal which I am now advocating referring as it does to the fact that a parent organisation could not have the technical knowledge which would enable it to differentiate between different classes of the same description of goods. On the other hand, individual associations representing the particular industries referred to and the particular goods specified, can assist those persons who will have to come to decisions, in regard to different classes of the same description of goods. While I am on this Clause may I ask whether Sub-section (3) means that the retailer must notify every sale—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now going beyond the point covered by his Amendment.

Mr. Doland: I bow to your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown and I hope to have an opportunity of referring to the point at a later stage. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will instruct those persons who are to be given power to fix these maximum prices, to consult, before doing so, with the particular trade the goods of which are specified.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lyttelton): I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it is the intention of the Board of Trade and of the Central Price Regulation Committee to keep in close touch with the trade organisations and to give the fullest weight to their experience and advice. We could not, however, accept this Amendment which would make it obligatory, in all cases, to consult the traders' organisation. It is


sometimes difficult to know what is the appropriate trade organisation in a particular case and there are cases—which will be exceptional—in which we should have to take specially rapid action. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend, however, that it has been the practice in the working of the Prices of Goods Act for the Central Price Regulation Committee to take counsel with the appropriate trade association, where there is such, in every possible case, and in the administration of this Measure the fullest weight will, as I have said, be given to the advice of the organisations concerned where consultation is possible.

Mr. Doland: On that assurance, that consultation will take place with the appropriate association, in cases where it is possible, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after the second "sell," to insert "expose for sale."
The purpose of this Amendment is to make it plain that where a seller exposes goods and places on them a ticket bearing a price, and where that price is in excess of the maximum, he shall, thereby, be committing an offence It may seem obvious that in such circumstances he would be committing an offence, but a number of decisions have been given in the courts to the effect that the mere placing of a price-ticket on goods is not to be regarded as an offer of the goods for sale. There is a well-known case in which a coat was displayed in a window bearing a ticket with the price £20. A person went into the shop, put down £20, and said, "I will have that coat." The shopkeeper said, "No, the price of that coat is £100." The prospective purchaser brought an action against the shopkeeper and it was held that the mere affixing of a price-ticket to the coat did not constitute an offer for sale. In the course of present-day dealings, many cases may arise in which shopkeepers will put tickets on coats bearing prices which may be in excess of the maximum price. If the Clause stands as it is now drafted, they cannot be held to be committing an offence. I know many cases in which shopkeepers have been prosecuted but have evaded their responsi-

bility by alleging that they were not offering the goods for sale. I would like to see these words inserted to make it clear that a person offering goods for sale and attaching to them a price in excess of the maximum will be committing an offence. If the Amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be—because we are all agreed as to the purpose of the Clause—certain consequential Amendments will be necessary in other parts of the Bill to which the same considerations apply.

Mr. Lyttelton: With the objects of the hon. Member's Amendment I entirely agree, but I am advised that Clause 20 (4) meets the case which he has in mind. There, an "offer to sell" is defined as including the
notification by a person of the price proposed by him for a sale of goods by exposing goods for sale in association with a mark indicating price.
That, I am advised, will achieve the objects which the hon. Member has in view, without the necessity for any such Amendment as that now proposed.

Mr. Silkin: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for pointing out that provision, and if that covers the point I would beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Leslie: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at the end, to insert:
(2) The Board of Trade shall take into consideration any application for the making of any such order received from any body of persons appearing to the Board to be representative of traders in goods of any description, or, with respect to goods of any description, from the central price-regulation committee.
This Amendment ought to appeal to the Board of Trade. It in no way affects the power of the Board to issue Orders or fix prices. It does not infringe on the Board's authority. The Amendment is calculated to assist the Board, while, at the same time, giving the trading community a sense of responsibility. Honest traders—and they are in the majority—desire to assist the Government and the consuming public in this national crisis. Their advice should be welcome, because it is based on practical experience. The men behind the counter have a knowledge of the intricacies of trade and the needs of the consuming public which should be


of immense value to the Board of Trade, and I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

Mrs. Hardie: The point I wish to make in connection with this Amendment is, that the price regulation committees will also be consulted before these Orders are made. We are exceedingly anxious that there should be consultation with these committees which have done good work in the past. It may be that the point will be covered in one of the succeeding Clauses of the Bill, but I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise the desirability of taking into consideration in the framing of these Orders the experience of the price regulation committees.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I support this Amendment and wish to remind my right hon. Friend of the provisions of the Act which this Bill seeks to improve under which there was power not to fix prices but to set up a permitted price. That power to-day is in the hands of the Board of Trade, but the initiative in that connection under the Act can come from three different parties. I am referring to Section 5 of that Act, in which it can come from the Board of Trade, the Central Price Regulation Committee, or on the application of a body representative of the traders. In the Bill that we have before us—and I have regard to the assurance of my right hon. Friend as to matters of consultation—in terms at any rate, the initiative is reserved entirely to the Board of Trade. I urge my right hon. Friend to accept either this Amendment or something to the same effect, which would allow the initiative to representative bodies and to the Central Price Regulation Committee. I am not suggesting that the Board of Trade under the direction of my right hon. Friend lack initiative, but I am sure that he would agree that on occasion it can be of considerable assistance to him to see that the wheels are set in motion by representative bodies and by the Central Price Regulation Committee.

Mr. Lyttelton: I think that this Amendment is unnecessary, because I cannot imagine any instance in which the Board of Trade would not take into consideration an application made by a representative body. It would be a grave dereliction of duty if they did not. I believe that the hon. Member for Carmarthen

(Mr. Hughes) is basing his case on Section 5 (1) of the Prices of Goods Act, which provision had a different purpose. Section 5 was intended to enable the Board of Trade, if asked to do so by traders concerned, to fix the permitted price mainly for the convenience of the particular section of the trade, in order that they could be sure that, if they sold at that permitted price, they would be outside the possibility of prosecution. This is rather a different matter. In so far as the Board of Trade are going to fix maximum prices, it would, in the ordinary course of events, be their duty to take into consideration any representations which were made. I can assure the hon. Member that that will be done. I do not think that the proposed words really help us at all. They really impose no obligation which would not be accepted by almost any prudent Department.

Mr. Hughes: I still do not understand why it was thought necessary to insert specific provisions in that Act enabling the Central Price Regulation Committee and traders to make representations and why they are omitted from the Bill we are now considering.

Mr. Lyttelton: That is just the point that I was trying to explain. Under the original Act this right was given in order that the trader should be able to ask for the permitted price and, the permitted price having been laid down, should be sure, if selling at that price, that he would be free from the danger of prosecution. It is quite a different procedure under this Clause because the maximum price is the only permitted price. In the permitted price there is a number of other factors which come under consideration.

Mr. Ness Edwards: What is the position in cases where there are existing maximum prices and traders are held up in carrying on their trade through having no permitted price? Have they the right to apply, and, if they have, why not express it in terms of the Amendment?

Mr. Lyttelton: If there is delay in fixing maximum prices, goods will fall to be dealt with under the existing Act.

Mr. Leslie: Am I to understand that we have to accept from the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that what is contained here will be carried out?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes.

Mr. Leslie: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, to leave out "by retail."
This does not mean that I am in any sense trying to exempt retail traders from the obligation imposed upon them by the Board of Trade to display their prices. The obvious intention of this Sub-section is to protect the public by methods of ticketing or printing upon the articles in order to protect the ultimate buyer. I wholeheartedly agree that the Board of Trade should have power to impose the obligation of ticketing articles or informing in some way or another the ultimate buyer of the price fixed by the Board of Trade under the Act. But my right hon. Friend is well aware—he is far better informed than I am in this matter—that many catalogues and price lists are not for the public to read but are issued for the benefit of wholesalers, factors and retailers. I cannot understand why the Board of Trade do not seek to take powers in the appropriate cases to compel manufacturers, wholesalers, or distributors to set out in their catalogues, or in proper places, the prices which they would be authorised to charge by the Order of the Board of Trade made under this Bill. I think that in this instance I can call in aid the support of the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting(Mr. Doland). As the Clause now stands, it assumes that the only person who needs to be kept in check from abusing or defying the Order of the Board is the retailer. It is not fair to assume that it is only the retailer. There may also be manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors who may need to be kept in check, and in order that the Board might have sufficient power to impose conditions upon them in appropriate cases similar to the conditions imposed upon retailers, I ask my right hon. Friend to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am prepared to accept this Amendment. I think that as a rule this provision is necessary for the protection of the ultimate consumer, but, owing to the knowledge of the trade, it might be unnecessary for the Order to prescribe similar requirements at other stages.

Nevertheless, we accept the Amendment, because it gives me power to include such provisions in Orders if required.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I understand from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that he will have power to fix a price from the producer to the wholesaler and another price for the retailer, or is it proposed that one maximum price shall be fixed so that the man who sells the goods in the first place may sell at maximum prices to the wholesaler, who will say to the retailer, "You shall have the goods at the same price," or will some arrangement be made whereby they will be scaled prices?

Mr. Lyttelton: Maximum prices are fixed for different classes of businesses and goods.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 21, leave out "by retail."—[Mr. Hughes.]

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert:
Provided that it shall not be a defence where the employer or other specified person alleged to have given such instructions is a body corporate.
My Amendment seeks to provide protection for the man or woman who sells goods behind the counter against whom, in law, if he or she had been engaged in one of these transactions, an action would normally lie. It does not in any way seek to limit the protection which has been given. It will be observed that the defence which is open to the shop assistant in the ordinary case depends upon two conditions. First, is the condition that the assistant should have acted in the course of his employment, and that condition, of course, is satisfied where the assistant is employed by an individual employer, corporation or limited company. The second condition is that in so acting the assistant has acted upon the instructions of his employer or some other specified person. Now in law that word "person" is wide enough to cover limited companies, and I do not desire that this defence should be extended to cases where the defence put up was (a) "I acted in the course of my employment" or (b) "The instructions I received were the instructions from X company."
As the Clause now stands, that defence would be a valid defence. Then the shop


assistant, quite properly, is exonerated, and the prosecutor will proceed to move against the company. A limited company, a body corporate, has been described as something which has no soul to be saved and no body to be kicked, and I cannot see that impositions upon limited companies will provide the proper sort of sanction that is required to see that these provisions are duly carried out. Further, in the defence as it stands now there exists the possibility of abusing the company law, as it has been on many occasions, by the old device of the one-man company. The man who serves behind the counter may in fact be the company; he may own the shares and control all its affairs. He has only to whisper, and the orders of the company will be carried out. He is, in fact, the person who can lie back and say, "I acted as an employé of the company, which is a different legal entity altogether. "He can say," I acted on the instructions of the company," which are really his own instructions, and that would satisfy the defence as it is now laid out. I say that if you want to avail yourself of this defence, you have to say "Not only was it in the course of my employment, but my instructions were given to me, not by Company A, but by Mr. A or Mr. B or some other individual who can be pursued."

Mr. Lyttelton: The effect of this Amendment would be entirely to defeat the object the hon. Member has in mind, because it would differentiate against the employé of a limited company as opposed to the employé of a private firm. The instance of a one-man company which the hon. Member gave did not appear to me to take us very far, because a person acting as a company's agent would be pursued as the principal for having committed a breach of the Act. There is nothing we can do to alter the fact that the majority of business transactions in all branches of trade are carried out by limited companies. If they have no souls, they certainly have purses. I think it is doubtful whether a body corporate can give instructions at all. They have to be given by power of delegation through one of the company's officers.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Doland: I think it can be admitted that this Bill is concerned only with consumers. We heard little during the Second Reading, and we have heard little up to now, about the safeguards which should be given to the trader. This Clause allows the Board of Trade to fix maximum prices for specified goods which will prevent excessive rises in the charges for those goods. Traders have no quarrel with that. The President of the Board of Trade on the Second Reading of this Bill said these very significant words:
Some rise in prices must be justifiable and inevitable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1941; col. 852, Vol. 372.]
But there is nothing in this Clause or in any other Clause, so far as I can see, which will safeguard the trading community from being pushed out of business if maximum prices which are made for specified goods are such as will not give the trader a sufficient margin to cover his overheads, let alone give him a small profit.
When the Bill is passed, traders will have to rely not only on the good will, fairness and honesty of purpose of the Board of Trade, but also on the Central Price Regulation Committee, which will be responsible for making the maximum prices. In the Second Reading Debate, the President of the Board of Trade paid a tribute to the British traders for being patriotic and law-abiding, and for submitting willingly, as a general rule, to restrictions on trade once they are satisfied that those restrictions are being equitably applied. With regard to this Clause, which is the principal Clause of the Bill, we sincerely trust that its provisions will be equitably applied in fixing maximum prices. As there is nothing that I can find in this Clause, or in any other Clause, to give this information to the trader, how does he know that the Central Price Regulation Committee, which I understand is responsible for advising the Board of Trade as to the maximum price for the goods specified, will fix a maximum price within which there will be a sufficient margin, and that that maximum price will be equitably applied? This Clause wholly concerns the consumers. The traders are given no assurance whatever that the maximum prices to be fixed will be such


as to allow them to continue their business. I am most anxious to ascertain whether the small trader will be able to continue in business when this Clause is in operation.
My right hon. Friend said that the costs which are allowed to be taken into the computation at present may require adjustment, and he mentioned overhead expenses in relation to reduced turnover. My right hon. Friend admits that there must be some increase in prices, but in making the maximum prices, surely he does not suggest that, with traders working under the rationing orders, the turnover of retail establishments will be increased and the overheads consequently reduced? That would be an impossibility to-day. The fact is that traders are rapidly going out of business owing to the rationing order and other similar measures. I consider that my right hon. Friend is a very optimistic man if he thinks that the turnover of any retail establishment will be fixed in such a way that the overheads will come down. Does he intend to allow, in the maximum prices, for that to come about? I repeat that there is great alarm in the trading community lest the maximum price of goods specified is fixed without due regard being had to that diminished turnover which will be the inevitable result. not of causes under the control of traders, but of the Acts and orders passed by the House. When, in the Second Reading Debate, my right hon. Friend spoke of the early bird, the two extreme examples which he gave certainly referred to the vultures of that species and not to the poor little sparrows, the small traders. It is not the small trader who makes these excessive profits out of helmets and vacuum flasks. Unless great care is taken in carrying out this Clause, the small sparrows may be devoured by the-big birds, or by the Board of Trade. I hope my right hon. Friend will give an assurance to traders that the equitable treatment to which he has referred will be meted out to them.

Mr. Garro Jones: The hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Mr. Doland) has put his finger on an extremely interesting point which must exercise the mind of everybody who reads the Bill; but can he be a little more precise, because if he can provide a scheme

under which the difficulty to which he has referred can be met, I am sure the whole Committee will be only too delighted. Let me give one example of the difficulty to which he referred. A shop may have sold over 1,000 overcoats in a year, but owing to the exigencies of the war situation, its sale of overcoats may fall to one. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the whole of the overheads previously distributed over 1,000 overcoats should be placed on the one overcoat, and that overcoat be sold, not at a low price, but at an extremely prohibitive price? Has the hon. Gentleman any proposal in mind, because I am sure the Committee would like to know how the problem could be dealt with?

Mr. Doland: The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) has followed the method of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and given us a very extreme example of one overcoat being sold instead of 1,000 overcoats. I would not dare to suggest any Amendment or new Clause for the Bill. I have asked for one thing only, and that is that there should be consultation with the traders' organisations in the particular trade concerned with the specified goods—not with the parent organisation, but with the actual organisation to which the order refers. If that is done—and my right hon. Friend has assured us that it will be done in most instances, if not in all instances—I shall be quite satisfied that fair and equitable treatment will be given by the Board of Trade.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: There is one thing that ought to be made clear before we part with this Clause, and that is that when goods are offered for sale in a shop, and a price-ticket is placed on them, the shop should be compelled to sell those goods to a customer.

The Deputy-Chairman: That point has already been raised in one Amendment, which was dealt with and accepted.

Sir W. Allen: I want my right hon. Friend to make the matter clear, as it is not clear to me from this Clause or from any other Clause in the Bill. The question of exposing for sale and offering for sale are two different things.

The Deputy-Chairman: What the hon. and gallant Member has in mind is dealt with quite clearly in Clause 20 of the Bill.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I should like to say a few words concerning Sub-section (3) of the Clause, which states:
Any such order fixing the maximum price to be charged for goods of any description in the course of a business which includes the selling of the goods by retail may require such steps as may be specified in the order to be taken to bring the said price to the notice of persons to whom the goods are offered for sale by retail in the course of the business.
With regard to bringing the correct price to the notice of the potential buyer, a great deal of trouble has been experienced, particularly by smaller shops, in understanding the provisions of the various orders that have been issued I wonder whether the President of the Board of Trade can provide, in another place, that this notice shall be brought in a special from In the case of packet goods, would it be impossible to provide that the permitted price, or the maximum price, should be stamped on the packet? There are many inspectors going round the country to see whether some poor widow who owns a shop is charging a farthing too much, but it seems to me that the greatest guilt does not lie with the small shopkeeper, but farther back in the production and general distribution. I wonder whether the President of the Board of Trade can give a more concrete and effective form to this provision. It would be of considerable importance, especially to the smaller retailer.

Mrs. Hardie: I should like to amplify that point, particularly in regard to drapery goods. In that connection I know something of the methods employed, and I have never dealt with stores which do not give fixed figures. It is well known that there is a varying price, and that the assistants can charge according to what they think the customer is likely to pay. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade can give us an assurance, when a price is fixed for goods, that the regulated price must be plainly marked. I do not necessarily mean that tickets should be displayed in the windows, because that is generally done; I suggest that prices should be shown in plain figures for the customer to see.

Mr. Lyttelton: The remarks of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro

Jones) are extremely pertinent to this matter. You have to have discretion in the matter, or we should be immediately driven off the whole objects of the Bill. For instance, when we talk about fixing a maximum price which will allow profits to all traders, what does that mean on examination? Suppose a trader has a large mortgage on his premises and has to meet interest charges on those premises before he can make a profit. It would be a very different maximum price for that trader compared with another trader who has no mortgage on his premises. There is no way of administering or achieving the objects we wish, unless there are wide powers. We recognise that, and we try to introduce reasonable safeguards, such as those provided by the Central Price Regulation Committee and the local committees who can be relied on to give sensible advice regarding maximum prices. I cannot see that we can have any more assurances than are already contained in the Bill. It is, I think, generally recognised that the Central Price Regulation Committee has, under the present Act, worked effectively. To begin to give any undertaking that so-and-so's overhead charges and so-and-so's interest on a mortgage will be included in the maximum price, is obviously impossible.
With regard to the suggestion that packets should have the price stamped on, I would point out that if there were any alteration in the maximum price, the confusion would be worse than if the price were marked separately. The suggestion presupposes that the maximum price will be fixed for a long period and will not be altered; but where a price is altered there will be more confusion among the smaller traders than if they had to put up another label. With regard to the other question, goods displayed at a given price must be sold at that price.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power to fix maximum charges for services in relation to goods.)

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, at the end, to insert:
(3) Any such order fixing the maximum charge to be made in the course of a business of any class for performing a service may require such steps as may be specified in the order to be taken to bring the said charge to


the notice of persons to whom offers are made to perform the service in the course of the business.
The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that where an Order is made fixing a maximum charge a person carrying on a business shall bring the charge for performing any service to the notice of his customers. There is an Amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) but I think the form of our Amendment is the better of the two.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has put this provision down. I do not wish to be conceited, but I thought the words of my Amendment would be more appropriate. I always feel that about my Amendments. The Amendment proposed by the President of the Board of Trade meets the case, but I am rather astonished that he did not include such a provision in this Bill before his attention was drawn to the point by our Amendment. He will know, of course, that it is not uncommon for a customer to know in a rough and ready way what is the price of an article. I do not think there is as much possibility of deceiving the ordinary customer over that, as there is in respect of services rendered between the manufacturer and the retailer. I think it was a good thing to put the Amendment down, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for meeting the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(>Sale of second-hand goods.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question which, in my view, raises a very important matter. I gather that under this Clause the Board of Trade will be able to deal with removers of household effects. As he perhaps knows only too well, there has been a ramp in certain parts of the country. People have had their houses damaged and have had to get their furniture away, and the removers in the neighbourhood have attempted to charge—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member has lost his chance. He cannot raise that matter on this Clause.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Are pawnbrokers covered under this Clause?

Mr. Lyttelton: It does not matter whether the trader is a pawnbroker or not, he must obey the law.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Middlemen and brokers.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ness Edwards: This Clause provides for the issuing of a licence. Do I understand that there is no provision in the Bill whereby a licence can be withdrawn if an offence has been committed?

Mr. R. C. Morrison: The Clause prohibits the retail by a wholesaler of goods purchased by a wholesaler. With the Co-operative Wholesale Society there is a good deal of business done on a system known as "invoicing through. "That is to say, goods may be ordered by a retail society through the Co-operative Wholesale Society, who invoice the goods through. I wondered whether that practice, which has obtained for a very long time, would be affected by the Clause.

Mr. Lyttelton: I think not. With regard to re-sale, the Board of Trade has power to withdraw the licence and, consequently, to put the trader out of business.

Mr. James Hall: Has the Board of Trade taken power to cancel those licences on the first offence, or must the offence be proved before action is taken?

Mr. Lyttelton: The Board of Trade need not give any reason at all. Probably a small mistake would be overlooked, but, if the first mistake was a grave one, the licence could be withdrawn.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Ascertainment of basic price.)

Motion made and Question proposed: "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir Robert Tasker: This Clause is likely to cause some confusion. The Board of Trade may determine the


proper price to charge for material. How can this be done without the preparation of a vast schedule of prices? As an example, consider the building industry. In the absence of a schedule of prices which the Board have power to determine, how will anyone know how to price goods when applying for payment under, say, the War Damage Act? There will be hundreds of thousands of such claims any one of which may involve reference to a thousand prices. Any attempt to compile a schedule for the building trade will involve the preparation of 100,000 separate prices in London alone. It should be recollected that London prices do not govern the rest of the country.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Order is published, and it is open to the people affected to read it.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE. 6.—(Ascertainment of permitted increase.)

Amendment made: In page 6, line 17, at the end, insert:
(2) Any such order may contain different directions as respects different classes of business."—[Mr. Lyttelton.]

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 6, line 24, to leave out Subsection (3) and to insert:
(3) Every order made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be, before Parliament, and if cither House within the next twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after the order has been laid before it resolves that the order be annulled, the order shall be of no effect, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done in the meantime there under or to the making of a new order.
I mentioned the subject matter of this Amendment on the Second Reading and suggested that, in view of the necessity for speedy action in regard to Orders to be made by the Board of Trade in varying the Schedule, instead of adopting the procedure laid down in the Bill, by which they would have to come to both Houses for an affirmative Resolution, they should rather adopt the other method by which they could issue their Order, which would become valid unless there were a Resolution to annul. That is common in legislation of this kind. Unfortunately, I was not present, but I read the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary with care, and I inferred generally from

what he said that he thought the procedure that I suggested was not so much in consonance with Parliamentary control as the procedure laid down in the Bill. I have as much regard to proper control by Parliament as anyone, but I am concerned with speed. The Parliamentary Secretary also seemed to imply that there was some degree of importance which had to be taken into account and that, if the matter were really fundamental and important, this affirmative Resolution was the proper method, while matters of minor moment could go through in the way I suggest of an Order being valid unless annulled. I submit that there is no substance whatever in that implication. I have taken my Amendment from the Factories Acts, where there is provision for the Home Secretary to make Regulations in respect of safety and protection and matters of that kind. If that procedure, giving the Minister power to make Orders subject to subsequent annulment, is good enough to provide for the protection of life and limb of thousands of workpeople, it is certainly good enough to decide Whether or not you will allow certain types of advertising to come into costs.
My motive is the matter of speed and adaptability. I will mention one factor which makes speed necessary. There is a process now going on for the concentration of production, and, in the course of that process, a number of firms will be closed down and their work handed over to what are described as nucleus concerns, and it will be the duty of the nucleus concern to provide out of the trade which remains to it a part of its profits to the concerns which have been closed down. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have power to move quickly. As things stand now, I do not know how far the obligation to provide payment to close down concerns is entitled to be brought in as a factor in justifying the nucleus concern to raise its prices. That question will arise from time to time in different industries and trades, and the President of the Board of Trade has suggested that in regard to that matter alone he ought to be allowed the opportunity of having in his hands powers which he can exercise at once. Otherwise, it would be easy for obstruction, if it desired to raise its head, to make itself effective. In spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said I


urge that this power should be taken, because I am satisfied, and I think the Committee will be satisfied, that only by this method can we get sufficient adaptability and speed to meet circumstances as they change.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): I think my hon. Friend has really got the position rather twisted round. There are two points, the first being the difference between this Clause and the other Clauses of the Bill. Under this Clause we are taking powers to alter the words of the principal Statute, while under other Clauses we are taking powers to make Orders. I think he will appreciate that that is a very material difference indeed. The second point he raised concerned expedition if what he called the ugly head of obstruction reared itself. Here I do not think his proposal quite meets the situation. Under it, my right hon. Friend might be kept on tenterhooks, not only for a day or so, but for 40 days, because this Order would lie on the Table for 40 days and, on the 39th day, when he might think he was getting away with it, my hon. Friend or somebody else might come along with a Prayer against it. We want this power for use in urgent cases. I think that, both from the legal point of view and from the point of view of expedition, our way is better, and it is infinitely better from the Parliamentary point of view.

Mr. Hughes: Upon the assurance of my hon. and gallant Friend, that he is satisfied that his is the more expeditious way, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Glenvil Hall: You courteously indicated. Colonel Clifton Brown, that on the Question of the Clause standing part I could raise the matter which I wished to raise earlier. As to the Clause itself, obviously it is a very great improvement upon the provisions in the original Bill. It is obviously an advantage that powers of this kind should reside in the President of the Board of Trade. These costs and charges alter, and if the President

of the Board of Trade cannot watch trends of this kind I feel it is impossible for other people to watch them, and I think the power we are now putting into his hands will be well and truly used. The point I wished to raise earlier concerns people who have to call in a furniture remover to take their furniture from one part of the country to another. It is difficult always to say what the charge for such service should be, and I wonder whether the President would be good enough to indicate the kind of machinery he proposes to set up to see that profiteering does not take place in these cases. As he undoubtedly knows, there is a great deal of feeling in regard to this matter, and although I am not going to press this suggestion I think it might be worth while to consider setting up an office under his Ministry to which a man who had received an estimate for the removal of his goods might take that estimate to ascertain whether it was or was not a fair charge It is obviously difficult to fix a flat rate for removals based upon mileage, because some people's effects include, for example, a great deal of china, which has to be specially packed, whereas other people have only a straightforward lot of furniture to be dealt with. We may get ourselves into difficulties unless we have thought out in advance the machinery which will have to be put into operation. Could not we have an office to which estimates could be taken to be "vetted"? It would follow from that that when the Board of Trade had given a decision that decision would have to be binding upon the furniture remover.

Mr. Leslie: When we discussed this matter some time ago I put forward several cases in which there had been attempts at profiteering. One was a particularly glaring case. Certain people wished to remove from Leigh-on-Sea to Muswell Hill, and the estimates for the removal of their furniture ranged up to £23. In the end a Muswell Hill remover did the work for £6, and thought that was a fair charge. I put the whole case before the Ministry of Transport, but they did not take any action. As a consequence of the steps I took in this matter I have been getting letters from all over the country showing that this profiteering is very widespread, and something ought to be done to prevent it, particularly in cases where people are forced to leave


certain districts owing to bombing or other circumstances.

Captain Waterhouse: I agree that there is a serious cause of complaint here. The charges for many of these services have been exorbitant. I feel, however, that to set up an office to which estimates could be submitted would be to deal with the situation in a very cumbersome way. Under this Bill we shall be setting up a body of inspectors throughout the country, and there are already local price regulation committees. Surely it is better for the public to complain either to an inspector or to a local committee than to have to go to some central bureau. In any case it would be almost impossible to administer such a bureau in these difficult times. We hope the machinery which I have described will meet all the needs of the case.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 7, 8 and 9, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Barter, mortgages and pledges.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Rhys Davies: I communicated with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade some time ago upon the subject of the sale of quotas between one trader and another. I would like to know whether the Clause deals with a matter of that sort.

Captain Waterhouse: No quota may be transferred without a licence from the Board of Trade. We know that there are abuses, but we are anxious to prevent them, and we are doing so to an increasing extent. Clearly, however, such a thing does not come under the Clause.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12—(Inspectors.)

Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, in page 10, line 5, at the end, to insert:
and such inspectors shall, as far as is practicable, act in consultation with the Central Price-Regulation Committee and any local price-regulation committees.

In some areas the control committees are not functioning at all actively, while in others they are doing a good job of work. We are anxious that inspectors shall not appear to be interlopers but shall work in close conjunction with the committees. Where the committees are not doing their job, the inspectors may be used to ginger them up. We give our general welcome to the Clause, and wish to see it operated most effectively by getting the maximum co-operation between the local people and the inspectors.

Mr. Lyttelton: The words "as far as is practicable" in the Amendment do not carry us very far, and would not be a serious addition to the Bill. There are matters on which inspectors are outside the scope of price regulation committees, but I give an assurance that, as the inspectors are Board of Trade officials, they will be instructed to work in consultation with price regulation committees.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Would that apply also to their acting in consultation with the Central Price Regulation Committee?

Mr. Ness Edwards: In view of the assurance given by the Minister I beg to ask leave to withdrew the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Rhys Davies: This is one of the operative Clauses of the Bill, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions about it. Inspectors will be able to walk into any shop of which they have suspicion, and if every shop were owned by the person behind the counter, all might be well. The inspector can call for books and other documents. I am thinking of multiple shops with branches all over the Kingdom and of Co-operative societies, and, as one who has worked in a shop himself, I think there is something offensive in calling upon a shop assistant or a branch manager to produce books to an inspector of the Board of Trade when those books are the property of the headquarters of the organisation.
Suppose the inspector walks into a branch of a Co-operative society and demands of the branch manager to see


the books. Those books do not belong to the branch manager but to the headquarters of the society, the office of which is probably in the same town. Could it not be arranged that, in order that the Clause should work smoothly, the inspector should go to the central premises and ask for the books and other documents relating to the branch? The persons responsible for dealing with such matters are not the branch officers but those at the headquarters. In the case of a firm with headquarters in London and branches all over the country it may be difficult to go to the central premises about the books of a branch which may be 100 miles away, but I feel there is something wrong if a man who is just a servant has to be faced with an inspector demanding from him information which, in the ordinary way, he gives to nobdy but his employers.

Captain Waterhouse: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on both the points he has put. Inspectors have just the very power for which he asks, that of entering any premises occupied for the purpose of the business, and clearly the headquarters premises are just as much occupied for the purpose of the business as are any of the branches. If the inspector thinks there are books or invoices, he can, and most probably will, go to where those books and invoices are kept, so that he may see them and satisfy himself on any matter about which he has doubt.

Mr. Doland: The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that the inspector will probably go to a certain place; surely it is not expected that a firm will duplicate its invoices 50 times and distribute them among its 50 branches in case the document should be demanded by an inspector. The Parliamentary Secretary should give a more definite assurance than that inspectors, will probably go to the head office, and should say that they must go to the headquarters to obtain information which they desire.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has entirely grasped the point raised by my hon. Friend beside me. The point he had in mind is the very embarrassing position which the shop assistant will be put into if an inspector suddenly turns up at the shop and calls

upon him to produce certain books or documents, or to make statements, in relation to matters over which he has no adequate control, and yet of which he is technically in control at the moment the" inspector arrives. Take, for instance, this illustration. Suppose an inspector comes to a shop and the person in charge of the books, and his second in command, are out for lunch. The inspector may say to an assistant who is present, "You are in charge of this shop for the moment; produce the books and answer certain questions." He may be an employéwho has only been at the shop a few weeks or even days, and he will be put into a position of great difficulty and serious embarrasment if he is called upon to produce books and papers, and answer questions, when in fact such demands ought to be addressed to a person in a much higher position.

Captain Waterhouse: Clearly an inspector who goes into a branch shop will not expect to find there invoices which are not normally issued from there. He would find out where the invoices were kept and would go to the office from which they are normally issued. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) raised another point, but I think that that also could be dealt with by the common sense of the inspector. It is laid down in the Bill that inspections are to be made at reasonable times, and I think it would be only fair to assume that it would not be a reasonable time for such an inspection if there were only on office boy in charge.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 13—(Furnishing of invoices.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir R. Tasker: Clause 13 provides that the Board of Trade may require the seller to furnish an invoice to the buyer. How are we to determine who is the seller? Is it the man who buys the raw material, is it the man who puts it through the first process, the second, third, fourth or fifth? An article may go through a dozen different processes, and how are the Board of Trade to determine which of the persons performing those various processes is the


seller; or has there to be an invoice such as is referred to in this Bill every time the goods change hands? It is well known that merchants can buy and sell more cheaply to the users than the actual manufacturer. This is brought about by the fact that the user buys few and the agent buys many. Who is the seller—is it the manufacturer, or is it the agent? I confess that this is most confusing to me and I would like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to clear up the point.

Captain Waterhouse: It seems to me that there can be only one buyer and one seller in any particular transaction, although one article may go through a series of processes. At one particular point in this process it may become a price-controlled article. As soon as that point is reached, every transaction between traders which takes place afterwards is covered by this Clause. If the article is sold from a manufacturer to a wholesaler, that is one transaction; from the wholesaler to the retailer is another transaction. In each of these specific transactions it is perfectly clear who is the buyer and who is the seller and, under the provisions of Clause 13, the necessary invoices would have to be furnished.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 16.—(General provisions as to offences.)

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 12, line 35, at the end, to insert:
(2) Where any person has been found guilty of an offence under this Act or under the principal Act and the Board of Trade is satisfied that the penalty imposed upon such conviction is inadequate (which shall be conclusively shown by a certificate of the President of the Board of Trade directing an appeal) an appeal shall lie against the penalty at the suit of the prosecutor in the proceedings before the court of summary jurisdiction to the appropriate court of Quarter Sessions.
This Amendment is designed to deal with a situation which has caused, I know, considerable concern to the administrators not only of the Act which we are now seeking to amend but of other Acts, Orders and Regulations—a concern which arises quite naturally because of the many cases where those guilty of flagrant offences have had derisory penalties meted out to them. In

case after case the penalty imposed has been but a flea-bite in comparison with the profit of the illegal trading. We have been told that prosecutions under the Prices of Goods Act have been few. That points clearly to the fact that we have had manifest difficulties which we are concerned to cure, but we have been given no particulars of those prosecutions, although such particulars were asked for during the Second Reading Debate. I am prepared to say, without any personal knowledge at all of that list of prosecutions, that there will be found on that list, penalties of the kind to which I have already referred. That has had serious effects on the administration of the Act. It has had effect not only upon committees which have to administer it and upon the enthusiasm of the inspectors whom we send round, but it has had effects and repercussions extending right up to the top of the Board of Trade. Imagine the President of the Board of Trade, or my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, calling for the returns of prosecutions for the last month and, on looking down the list, finding these little penalties— £1 here, 40s. there—and turning round and saying to his officials "Why on earth have we engaged in all this expense and bother "—because it is expensive and bothersome for the Department to conduct these prosecutions—" in order to produce these fiddling results? "
The result is a complete discouragement of the efforts which ought to be put forward to secure that the provisions of the law are properly carried out. I agree with what was said by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on the Second Reading, and was emphasised by the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Mr. Doland), that it is only a fringe of traders who are responsible for non-observance of the law. At the same time we must remember that of that fringe, not more than a small percentage is ever caught and the only way to deter the remainder who are not caught is to be certain that the penalty fits the crime. That is all the Amendment is designed to do. I can see that I am up against serious difficulties. There are, as far as I can see, only three ways in which we can see that the penalty is adequate. The first is to impose a minimum penalty. That is not a method which would commend itself in this country. A system of


justice which is not flexible enough to take into account all the necessary variations of liability is not the kind of system we want in this country. There is a second alternative—the setting up of special tribunals. Again I do not advocate that kind of Star Chamber method.
There remains only one other way of doing it. I challenge my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to point out any other way but the one I suggest, that is, to give to the Board of Trade, a responsible body, the power, where the penalty is inadequate, to appeal against the deficiency of the penalty. It is a right of appeal which is given to every defendant; he can appeal if he thinks the penalty is too much. In a case like this I think we, as a Committee, ought to grant the President of the Board of Trade the right of appeal when the penalty is not as heavy as it ought to be. It is a restricted right, a limited right, under the control of the President of the Board of Trade and has the safeguard, in that respect, that it would not be indiscriminately exercised. I shall look forward to the reply of my hon. and gallant Friend, and I venture to forecast that the only argument that can be offered against this proposal will be that we cannot have it because it is new and because there is no precedent in our law for this kind of case. I do urge that something should be done to make sure that we do not get these derisory penalties, and to see the law is adequately enforced.

Mrs. Hardie: It is not congenial for me to ask that heavier penalties should be imposed on anyone, even those who have done wrong. On the other hand, we do not want to make it possible for people to make a profit out of breaking the law, and that is what is happening in certain cases. I believe that the bulk of traders will not seek to break the law. Once the prices are fixed they will probably abide by them. There are, however, a few who break the law knowing quite well they are doing so and that they may be penalised, but who reckon that even when they take the penalty into account, they can still make a profit. There have been one or two glaring cases of food prosecutions. There was one particular example in the City of Glasgow where someone in respect of the marketing of eggs, was fined

£1,000. It was reckoned that they had made £3,000 or more on the transaction, and were prepared to pay the fine. It is just because there is a small section of traders of this description that we ask, in this Amendment, that where a fine or punishment is inadequate, the Board of Trade should have the right of appeal against the sentence.

The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt): The hon. Member who moved this Amendment prophesied as to who would give the answer and what the answer would be. He proved to be a very bad prophet about who would give the answer. I am not sure that he is in any better case about what the answer will be. Of course, one part of the answer is obviously to say that this is a wholly novel procedure that is suggested, without any precedent in our law, to make this very far-reaching alteration in our law giving a right of appeal to a prosecutor, and it cannot be dealt with as a side issue on a Goods and Services (Price Control) Bill. Obviously, if you are going to do any such thing, it ought to be part of a thought-out policy, applying, not only to this Bill, but to all sorts of other Bills as well. In addition, there is, as I see it, another very serious objection to the proposal. One thing we are very insistent upon, and proud of, in this country is the fact that the judiciary are free from interference by the Executive, and are not to be browbeaten by the Executive at all. It seems to me that this proposal would be quite a departure from that principle. Let us assume this case: A local bench of magistrates imposes a fine which is thought to be inadequate. Then my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has to give a certificate that the justices, in that particular case, imposed what is, in his opinion, too small a fine.

Mr. Hughes: I thought I had drafted the Amendment in such a way as to show that the certificate of the President of the Board of Trade directing an appeal would be of itself sufficient, and would not have" to specify the President's view.

The Solicitor-General: Of course, it implies the President's view.

Mr. Hughes: Certainly it does.

The Solicitor-General: The President gives a certificate directing an appeal, a


certificate which conclusively shows that the penalty imposed is regarded as inadequate, and then the matter goes before the court of quarter sessions. At the court of quarter sessions the scales are indeed weighted against the defendant. Not only is he put in peril twice, but, on the second occasion, the prosecutor comes there waving in his hand a certificate of the President of the Board of Trade, who has applied his mind to the particular case, and saying that in the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade the previous penalty was inadequate. It is quite a proper thing for the Executive to circularise benches of magistrates throughout the country on general topics not relating to a particular case. The other day the Minister of Food did circularise magistrates pointing out how serious to the community, socially, were the consequences of breaches of the food laws. Here, too, it is desirable that some general course might be taken, but I should think it entirely wrong to send what is in effect an instruction, coming with the great authority possessed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to justices who are hearing a particular case, telling them that in the opinion of the Board of Trade this, that, or the other penalty is inadequate. I must, therefore, resist the proposal, which I consider retrograde, undesirable, and in every way unnecessary.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Provisions of Principal Act Repealed.)

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I beg to move, in page 19, line 41, column 2, to leave out "Paragraph (a)," and to insert "The whole section."
I am afraid the Amendment is somewhat technical in character. I was not altogether surprised when someone asked me why I was not dealing with the point that I put on the Second Reading, relating to procedure in Scotland. In fact, this Amendment, in its rather technical terms, is designed to raise that very point. Section 21 of the Act referred to in the

Schedule relates to the application to Scotland. If the whole of Section 21 were repealed, instead of merely paragraph (a), it would get rid of the lengthy procedure to which I made reference on the Second Reading, and would result in a direct application to the Lord Advocate. It is for that purpose that I am moving this Amendment. The point is a very simple one. It is felt in Scotland that the procedure is unnecessarily cumbersome. The local price committee has to go to the Central Price Committee, the Central Price Committee has to go to the Board of Trade, the Board of Trade, presumably after making inquiries, has to go to the Lord Advocate, and the Lord Advocate has then to go to the local price committee before he instructs the Procurator-Fiscal. It has been suggested that that process might be short-circuited, so that the Lord Advocate, who is the initiator of all prosecutions in Scotland, may be approached direct instead of through the Board of Trade. I believe that there is a somewhat technical objection to this Amendment, but I do not think I need say anything further. If the Government cannot accept the Amendment in the form in which it is put down, I hope they will be able to indicate how they propose to short-circuit these proceedings, which in Scotland are unnecessarily long.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): It is true that there are several technical objections to this Amendment, but it is quite proper that the principle should be discussed. I think that the Amendment could not possibly achieve the object sought, which, I understand, is to cut out two stages of the present procedure. The first is the recourse to the Central Price Committee; and the second, the recourse to the Board of Trade. In so far as the recourse to the Central Committee is to prevent any measure of hardship or injustice to accused persons, so that the local committee shall not indulge in improper prosecutions—as conceivably they might, although they are not likely to—that might be met by the Lord Advocate taking the place of the Central Price Committee to judge of the propriety, from the point of view of equity and justice, of the proceedings. Another reason for the recourse to the Central Committee is to obtain uniformity, as far as may be, of policy in this matter, and so that the Central Committee shall be


kept acquainted with the way the Act is being administered in different parts of the country. If you cut out the Central Price Committee you lose that very great advantage. Therefore, I think it desirable that the Central Price Committee should remain.
As for the recourse to the Board of Trade, it is part of the procedure that in cases of this character the Lord Advocate should consult with the Department before he takes any steps. It is very desirable that that should be so. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has omitted to note that there is a short circuit of procedure in the Act at present. When the local price committee does not initiate proceedings, but somebody reports to the Lord Advocate, the Lord Advocate himself takes proceedings. I agree that there have been some cases of considerable delay, but my information is that that delay has not generally been so much in the intermediate stages as in the initial stages, where very careful investigation is necessary. I do not think it desirable to alter the present system merely in order to avoid the possibility of delay in the intermediate stages. There will be inevitable delay in the initial stages, and a little delay in the collection of evidence by the Lord Advocate, though not much; Otherwise there will be very little delay at all, and for these reasons I do not think that the Government can accept the Amendment.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: In view of what the Lord Advocate has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 19, line 42, column 2, after "words," to insert:
Cost of the provision of materials, whether raw or semi-manufactured, and of stocks of goods, requisite for the carrying on of the business.
Liability for duties of customs and excise, rates, and interest on money borrowed.
Expense of advertising, employment of salesmen on commission, and other marketing measures.
The total volume of the business over which the overhead expenses thereof fall to be spread.
This is an Amendment to delete from the Third Schedule to the Bill a number of items which, not necessarily in the form

in which they stand, but in some form or other, must properly be embodied in a system which seeks to assess differentiations of cost. I do not move the Amendment with the desire of eliminating them altogether, but frankly, I put it forward in order to elicit from my hon. and gallant Friend some indication of the principles that the Board of Trade will seek to pursue in amending the Schedule, as amend it they must. I would like to express my gratitude to my hon. and gallant Friend, and to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, for the accommodating way in which they have met the Amendments which my hon. Friends and I have put forward. We have secured two Amendments and extracted two very valuable assurances. I hope that that spirit of accommodation will follow in the expression of the views in the minds of my hon. and gallant Friend, and my right hon. Friend as to the method they are going to pursue with regard to this Schedule.
The first item I wish to insert deals with the question of the cost of the provision of materials and stock. The two points which arise under that are the cost of the concentration of production and the purchase of quotas which have already been mentioned. I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to say something about it, particularly with regard to quotas. I anticipate that the purchase of quotas is not a matter which they encourage, but, be that as it may, there is, under the Limitation of Supplies Order, a great deal going on with regard to dealing with quotas. As I read the first item in this Schedule, the cost of the purchase of the quota can properly be brought in under the item of the cost of the provision of stocks and goods. I would like to hear the ideas of my hon. and gallant Friend with regard to putting that matter right.
The second item I would seek to eliminate is that which deals with liability for duties of Customs and Excise, rates, and interest on money borrowed. I will not open the matter now, but I confess that I find it difficult to see how, on any showing whatever, a bare item of interest on money borrowed can properly be brought in as a costing item on the production of a particular article. It may perhaps be that, if the


borrowing is directly and specifically applicable to the turnover of the article, it could be justified. That I do not know, but, as a general item, it cannot be justified, and I would like some explanation with regard to the future policy on that matter.
The third item of exclusion is that which deals with advertising. What is to be the policy of the Board of Trade with regard to Press advertising? Press advertising was mentioned on the Second Reading, and it can be extended to every kind of advertising. We live to-day in a world which is the sellers' paradise. If you have anything to sell, you can sell it, and I do not think that one-quarter of the advertising that goes on to-day can possibly be justified as an item of cost upon the article. What is the policy going to be? Finally, in the matter of the spreading of overhead expenses, I agree with the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Mr. Doland) that, if you take an instance of 100 overcoats and one overcoat, it is going a bit too far, but I think he will agree that it is not going too far to say that there are plenty of cases where turnover has fallen from 100 to 30 or 20, and that that gives one-fifth of the turnover on which to spread the overheads. What is to be the policy of the Board of Trade with regard to that? From the indications that we have had in the course of the Second Reading Debate and on this Committee stage to-day, I gather that at any rate it is not the intention to apply that arithmetically, and they ought not to do so. If they are not going to apply it arithmetically, as is at present justified under this Schedule, it is right that the public and traders should know the principle which is to be applied. I was unable to extract an answer from my right lion, and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, but I hope that by moving the rejection of these four items in the Schedule, I shall be able to extract an answer from my hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain Waterhouse: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is going to be unlucky if he expects to have any specific indication of the general principles which we propose to adopt. Clearly we cannot accept the Amendment, and I gather that he did not really expect the Amendment to be accepted. If we were now in a position

to set out our proposals in detail, they would have been included in the Bill, and that would have avoided the necessity for taking powers under this Clause to amend the First Schedule to the Act. There are changing circumstances every week and every month, there are different viewpoints on the various subjects and we have to arm ourselves with the power to alter the items in the First Schedule. The hon. Member raised certain specific points. I understand that it is most unlikely that the purchase of a quota would betaken into consideration in allowing the trader to increase his price. The hon. Member said that he could conceive of no case in which the interest on borrowed money could affect prices. I could imagine a good many cases. If a man borrowed money to build his shop, would it not be reasonable that the interest on that money should be considered as a general expense in the running of the shop and therefore reflected to a greater or less degree in the price of every article he sold in the shop?

Mr. Hughes: I agree that it would be an item of cost in the first place, but I doubt whether interest on borrowed money could afterwards be taken to justify an increase in price.

Captain Waterhouse: These are items which have to be taken into consideration in the general fixing of the cost. It is true that the borrowings may be private ones, but this does temporarily come into the matter of costs. That must go without saying. With reference to the hon. Gentleman's point about the expense of advertising, quite clearly advertising is necessary in many industries. It may be argued equally well that at a time like this there may be some abuse of advertising and that people may prefer to spend a few thousand pounds, or scores of thousands of pounds, in advertising rather than hand it over to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Excess Profits Tax. I think that, human nature being what it is, it is impossible to rule out that consideration completely. On the other hand, the hon. Member would not say for one moment that advertising costs could not be a proper charge in this regard in any particular industry. Again, the matter of overheads is a very vexed question indeed, but if the hon. Gentleman wants a general ruling I think the only general


rule one can give is that the Board of Trade will approach this matter with an endeavour to secure equity through reason. I hope that will satisfy him.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Doland: I wish to detain the House for a few minutes to say that as far as retailers are concerned, we have heard of a number of extreme and exaggerated cases of profiteering but I think the height of extravagant statement was reached when the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. M. Hughes) said to-day that there is a "sellers' paradise." Whether he referred to retailers or not I am not sure, but I can assure him that that is far from the case to-day. The President of the Board of Trade spoke of the excellent results of the work of the Central Price Regulation Committee and I agree that they have done splendid work. But I must point out that they had before them for their guidance the standard of prices for goods. If I remember correctly, the standard was pre-war prices, with certain specified additions that were necessary owing to the increase of overhead charges. They have no such standard in this Bill, as I understand it, and I would like to emphasise the urgent necessity, in view of that fact, for very close collaboration with the actual trade organisations and the Central Price Regulation Committee prior to these maximum prices being placed on the Statute Book. While all honest traders welcome this Bill, if it safeguards consumers against the flagrant cases of profiteering, to which the President of the Board of Trade referred on the Second Reading, they hope they will receive equitable treatment whereby they will be enabled to make a living when once the maximum prices are established for specified goods. I thank the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary for the assurances which have been given to this effect, and I am certain that traders will be very grateful.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

TRUSTEE (WAR DAMAGE INSURANCE) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a very simple Measure which I am sure will be accepted in all parts of the House. It is merely a Bill to enable trustees to insure goods or growing timber against war damage. It may seem odd, but none the less it is the fact, that there is some doubt at the present time whether or not trustees have that power. It is obviously desirable that that doubt should be removed and that trustees should be able to act in the same way as any prudent man would act in regard to his own property and insure, if they think it is a proper case for insurance. It is not compelling them to do anything, but it removes the doubt which has been expressed as to whether they have the right.
In one small matter we are supplementing the existing law. Members will see that this is a Bill "to remove doubts and supplement the power of trustees" and we have supplemented their power in this very simple way. If trustees have a pool of money in their hands which is derived from the sale of land, this Bill merely provides that they can, if they are so minded, devote money out of that pool to pay the premiums on capital outgoings under the War Damage Act. In that very small way we are supplementing the existing law and I cannot conceive of any objection from any quarter of the House. We are proposing to ask the House to put the Bill through all its stages to-day for the reason that the time in which insurance may be made expired on 15th June, but the Board of Trade has said that they will extend the time for a short period. It is, therefore, desirable to get these powers at once so that trustees who are prompt to take advantage of this removal of doubt under the existing law will have the advantage of the War Damage scheme.

Mr. Ammon: The Solicitor-General has said that this is a small and simple Bill, but, in spite of our friendship, one is naturally doubtful of the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he appears here as a lawyer. I think he said that this Bill enables trustees


to insure growing timber, but there is nothing in the Measure to indicate that this is so, unless it is a case of legislation by reference. I have not seen anything in the Bill to suggest that it is drawn so narrowly, and I should be glad if my right hon. and learned Friend would enlighten me on this matter.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will, see that Clause 1, Sub-section (1, a) of the Bill deals with
any insurance which the Board of Trade are authorised to undertake under either of the schemes operated under Part II of the War Damage Act, 1941 …
The two schemes in Part 2 of the War Damage Act are the Business Scheme, which is compulsory, and the Private Chattels Scheme, which is optional. Trustees need not be authorised to go into the Business Scheme, because they are compelled to do so, and it follows that, being compelled to do a thing, they have a right to do it; but there is one exception, because all growing timber is treated, under Section 62 of the War Damage Act, as part of the Business Scheme, although it Is a voluntary matter. In that one respect the Business Scheme is voluntary, but in all other respects it is compulsory. What we have to do really is to extend the power of trustees in relation to the voluntary scheme. The insurance of growing timber is the only voluntary part of the Business Scheme; it is unnecessary to give trustees power to do that which they are bound to do, and, therefore, it is only necessary to give them power to go into the Business Scheme in regard to this particular matter.

Mr. Ammon: Am I to understand that growing timber is the only thing which comes under the voluntary scheme, and that all other things are covered? I ask this because my right hon. and learned Friend referred specifically to timber, and to timber only.

The Solicitor-General: There are two schemes, the Private Chattels Scheme, which is completely optional, and with regard to which we have to give trustees power to insure if they want to do so; and the Business Scheme, which is compulsory save in one small item, growing timber; and therefore, in regard to growing timber we have also to give trustees the right to insure, if they are so minded.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the said Committee."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In spite of the somewhat formidable title which this Bill bears, it makes no change in the system of discipline in the Royal Navy, but, as I will show, merely amends the method of administering inquiries into disciplinary offences, to the advantage not only of the Service as a whole, but of the officers charged with offences against the disciplinary code. Hon. Members will be aware that the ordinary method of adjudicating upon such offences is by means of courts-martial, but during the last war a Naval Discipline (Amendment) Act (No. 2) was passed, in 1915, under which the system of disciplinary courts was set up. This amending Act inserted into the Naval Discipline Act, 1866, a new Section, 57a, which gave powers during time of war for the convening of disciplinary courts for the trial of offences of a minor character by officers. The object of that innovation was simply one of convenience. There is no difference whatever between a court-martial and a disciplinary court in so far as procedure is concerned. The difference lies exclusively in the constitution and powers of the court.
Quite rightly, the setting up of a court-martial has always been, and I hope always will be, a somewhat formal affair. The president of a court-martial under Statute has to be an officer of at least the rank of a captain of the Royal Navy. The selection of officers to serve on a court-martial automatically consists of those officers immediately junior to the


president of the court who are present on that particular station. The court has to consist of a minimum of five officers and a maximum of nine. It has to be held on board ship, except in certain exceptional conditions, and at least two of His Majesty's ships must be present in the place where the court is held. The House will readily see that, in present conditions, that may occasion considerable difficulty and considerable inconvenience. On the other hand, the president of a disciplinary court may be an officer of the rank of commander. The court consists of from three to five officers in number. The other members do not have to be automatically selected from the officers immediately junior in rank to the president. As in the case of a court-martial, they must all be executive officers, but they may be drawn from the Royal Navy, the Royal Naval Reserve, or the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, and this court may sit in any place where it is directed. Therefore, it will be seen that it is a very much more simple matter to set up a disciplinary court than it is to set up a court-martial, and in these days, when the Fleet is distributed over a large number of stations, stations where there may be only a very few of His Majesty's ships present, and where instant readiness for action is becoming increasingly necessary, it would be a great convenience to the Service to be able to deal with the offences with which it is proposed disciplinary courts shall have power to deal, by a less formal method than that occasioned by the setting up of a court-martial.
Under the amending Act of 1915, it was laid down that a disciplinary court could deal only with certain offences. These offences are enumerated in Sections 17 to 43 of the Naval Discipline Act. They include such offences as disobedience, using violent language to a superior officer, quarrelling, desertion, improperly leaving one's ship or place of duty, absence without leave, drunkenness, swearing and acts prejudicial to naval discipline. For these ofiences the disciplinary courts can award sentences ranging to dismissal from the Service, but such courts cannot pass a sentence of death, penal servitude, dismissal with disgrace, or imprisonment with detention. The change, which it is proposed to introduce as a result of this Bill, is to include

among the offences, which under the present law can be dealt with by a disciplinary court, those offences which fall within Section 9 of the Naval Discipline Act. If hon. Members have a copy of the Act by them, they will see that Section 9 reads as follows:
Every person subject to this Act who shall desert his post or sleep upon his watch or negligently perform his duties shall be dismissed from His Majesty's Service with disgrace …
The trial of these particular offences, which to-day cannot be tried by a disciplinary court, we wish to include among the powers of that type of court. The reason for the proposed change is that there have been certain cases during the present war in which small craft, in charge of a junior officer, have been either hazarded, or in some cases lost, through the negligence of their commanding officers. To convene a court-martial as we have to do now in order to deal with these offences, occasions considerable delay which is of advantage neither to the Navy as a whole, nor to the officer who is charged with the offence. Therefore, the opinion is widely held in the Service that this is a departure which should be made forthwith. The question of whether such an offence, or such an officer charged with that offence, should be tried by a court-martial, or by a disciplinary court, would be a matter for the discretion of the commander-in-chief or of the flag officer closely concerned. I think it is obvious that a senior officer of that kind, if he felt that the case was one of a sufficiently serious nature, would at once order that a court-martial should be convened rather than a disciplinary court
Hon. Members may ask whether the same procedure will apply to cases in which ratings are concerned. This amending Pill will not concern the trial of ratings, because other provisions already exist under Section 56 of the Act to deal summarily with offences by naval ratings, through the powers exercised by the captain of a ship. Here again, if the offence were of a sufficiently serious nature, the officer would see that the offender had the advantage of a trial. As was the case under the Act in 1915, disciplinary courts can be held or set up only in times of war, and, of course, the same applies to the extension of the powers which we are seeking in this Bill. I think I have covered all the ground


which is relevant to this very short amending Bill, but if hon. Members wish to ask any questions I shall be only too happy to reply to them.

Mr. Ammon: There is very little about which one wishes to ask arising out of this Measure. In fact, the only question which occurred to me has already been answered by the Parliamentary Secretary when he said that ratings were excluded from the provisions of the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to "present conditions," "these days" and so on. I take it that means that this is a war-time Measure which will cease to exist, as and when we return to normal conditions.

Sir V. Warrender: indicated assent.

Mr. Ammon: Actually the Bill simply seeks to transfer categories of offences now tried by courts-martial to these disciplinary courts. That seems to me to be somewhat invalidated when the Parliamentary Secretary says that it is left with the commanding officer to determine whether or not there shall be a court-martial. I understand that the disciplinary courts can be composed of officers of the Volunteer Reserve, that is to say those who are not regularly attached to the Navy. Does that mean they will have authority to bring to trial commissioned officers who are employed permanently in the Navy? I think it would be worth while if we had an answer on that point.

Sir V. Warrender: I think the answer to the last question is that that would be so. I purposely said that whether or not a particular offence should be dealt with by a disciplinary court would be left to the discretion, either of the flag officer in charge, or the commander-in-chief of the command in which the offence took place. I have no doubt whatever, although the offence may, technically, have been a comparatively minor one, that if it seemed to be serious to a responsible officer of that rank he would certainly see that the officer concerned would have the advantage of having his case tried by a court-martial. It has happened that small craft have been lost as a result.

not of any tremendous crime, but perhaps through inexperience and some minor negligence. In this case, it has been thought unnecessary to go through the elaborate procedure of a court-martial, and by this method we shall be able to deal with a case like that expeditiously and with justice both to the service and the individual concerned.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House—[Mr. Whiteley]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the said Committee." —[Mr. Whiteley.]

Mr. Mander: I rise only for the purpose of asking whether this Measure can be regarded as of extreme urgency, because if not, it seems to me undesirable to depart from the usual Parliamentary practice of allowing an interval between the Second Reading and Committee stage which gives hon. Members an opportunity of putting down Amendments. I think we should retain the usual practice unless, of course, we are told by the Government the matter is very urgent. It is a little difficult in present circumstances, to see how it can be urgent, but I merely ask the Minister to be good enough to give us an explanation.

Sir V. Warrender: I understand it will be greatly to the convenience of those responsible to get the Bill through all its stages to-day so as to get it on the Statute Book at an early date.

Mr. Mander: In the circumstances I raise no further objection to taking the Committee stage now, but I hope the Government will note the point that I have made of allowing an interval wherever possible.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

JUSTICES (SUPPLEMENTAL LIST) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[COLONEL CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of supplemental list, and limitation of powers and duties of justices entered thereon.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Mander: I should like to ask the Solicitor-General one or two questions. There is a certain type of justice who, while he enjoys occupying a position of dignity, does not attend regularly to his duties. There are cases in which they do not attend at all. I should like to know whether it is intended to deal with such cases under this Measure or whether it is intended to deal with them more drastically, as I think they ought to be dealt with, by removing those justices from the list of magistrates. It is difficult to see how they would come within the definition of the words in Clause 1,
by reason of his age or infirmity or other like cause.
I do not know that the negligence of a person who cannot be said to be old, really is "a like cause." I do not know whether this is a matter with which the Lord Chancellor is going to deal in the same way as Lord Hailsham did and whether, after due notice, these magistrates will be informed that they cannot continue to occupy the position of dignity, unless they do their work and that they will be removed from the roll of magistrates. I am referring to cases where a man is on the spot and is perfectly well and "there is nothing to prevent him performing his duty. I should also like an explanation of the words in Subsection (4):
more conveniently designated in some manner other than the entry of their names in the supplemental list.
Does that mean by starring their names or something of that kind?

Mr. Ammon: I understand that the Bill, in effect, recalls from the shelf justices who have been relegated there, even under the order of Lord Hailsham, by reason of age or infirmity, or even for not attending to their duties,

as far as going to court is concerned, and that they are now being called in to perform such minor offices as signing forms, witnessing signatures, taking affidavits and that sort of thing. I imagine that that is really the purpose and intention of the Bill. Also I think there is some difficulty in removing people wholly from the bench. They are allowed to keep their title even after they have ceased to function in the ordinary way. Further, there are differences of procedure in various parts of the country as to the functions that a justice of the peace may be called upon to perform. The duties are not so onerous in London as in the Provinces. A justice does not do much of the ordinary magisterial work, except in petty courts, dealing with such things as rate summonses, education summonses and so forth. The rest of his duties are mainly confined to the licensing bench or to the witnessing of attestation forms. I imagine that this is really a call-back to these minor services, of those justices who may, for the time being, have been set apart because for various reasons they were unfit to perform the full duties appertaining to the office.

Sir Geoffrey Ellis: There is one matter that appears to have been left out of the Clause. It would be safer to make it clear that members of an appeal committee must not be on the supplemental list.

Mr. Price: A point I wish to bring forward arises under Subsection (3) of Clause 1, by which the Lord Chancellor will have power to remove from the list of acting magistrates those who by reason of age or infirmity or other like cause do not do their duty. There is no ambiguity about age or infirmity, but the words "other like cause" are a little ambiguous. There are many magistrates whose names, we think, should be removed who do not attend for any reason, but there are also other magistrates who would like to attend but who are very busy people and cannot always find time to do so. Therefore, one hopes that a certain amount of discretion will be exercised by the Lord Chancellor and that he will inquire as to the reason for non-attendance. I hope we shall have an assurance from the Solicitor-General that such inquiry will be made before a man is removed from the acting list.

Dr. Peters: I should like to support what has been said by my hon. Friend opposite. As a solicitor of more years standing than I like to remember I must say that I have known justices of the peace who for 10, 15 or more years have never taken any active part in the duties of a magistrate. They have simply had the designation of justice of the peace. In one case in my own constituency a justice of the peace lives immediately opposite to the police court, but not for 20 years have I seen him in court, nor have I seen his signature upon a summons. As to the point about the ambiguity of the phrasing of Sub-section (3) of Clause 1, perhaps the learned Solicitor-General may be able to give some explanation on the point and, if it is not satisfactory, say whether an Amendment later would be accepted.

The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt): I have been asked various questions, and I will do my best to reply to them in the order in which they were asked. First, I was asked by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and by other hon. Members to say something about the case of the man who habitually and for no adequate reason neglects his duties and does not attend to them at all. That case does not come within the purview of this Bill. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton said, and I think said rightly, that you could not say that that class of person is removable by reason of age or infirmity or other like cause. Therefore, he does not come within this Bill, and I confess that I think his case needs a different and more drastic method of treatment. My noble Friend authorises me to say that the course he proposes to take, following precedent, is in proper cases to ask the magistrate to resign from the commission. In that way we shall succeed in ridding the list of what is a mere name and nothing else. If in such a case a magistrate who had been asked to resign refused to do so and neglected to answer the request, then my Noble Friend would have no hesitation in exercising the power which he has to remove the magistrate from the commission altogether.

Mr. Price: Would that be removal from the acting list to the non-acting list?

The Solicitor-General: No, that would mean removal from the list altogether.

The only way in which a man can be moved from the one list to the other and yet for him still to remain a magistrate is by way of the powers under this Bill which relate to age, infirmity or other like causes. We wanted to make the phrase wide enough and so the words "other like cause" were introduced with the idea of covering all the cases we want to cover.
Then an hon. Member asked me the meaning of the words in Subsection (4) about names being "conveniently designated." What has happened in London is really the reason for the action we have taken. A plan was devised, for London which avoided what was thought to be the indignity of a separate list. The names of the magistrates are all on one list, but the names of the acting magistrates have appended to them the name of the division for which they sit. If a magistrate's name on the list has no division appended to it, it means to say that he is not an acting magistrate but is on the supplemental list. London was anxious to retain that procedure, and so long as we get what is in substance and fact the two lists it does not matter in which way it is done, provided there is no ambiguity.
The hon. Member for North Camber-well (Mr. Ammon) rightly appreciated the scope and object of this Bill. While the Lord Chancellor has, of course, absolute power to remove a man altogether from the commission, and in proper cases would not hesitate to do so, it is very hard to apply that drastic treatment to a man who has for many years rendered yeoman service and now suffers merely from advancing age, or deafness, or something of that sort, which perhaps he himself does not realise. In such a case, if the magistrate is not willing to go on to the supplemental list the Lord Chancellor can put him on. He retains the dignity and status of a justice of the peace and is not put into the category of those who have done something disgraceful, but at the same time he does not have the right to sit in judgment on his fellow citizens.
The hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Sir G. Ellis) asked about the appeals committees. Appeals from the summary courts to Quarter Sessions are now more generally heard by appeals committees, and he asked me whether they are covered. I think they


are, and I am advised that they are, but I would call his attention to the definition in Sub-section (5) where he will see that the expression "court of quarter sessions" includes any committee by which the powers and duties of such a court are exercised by virtue of any Act. I think that to the best of my ability I have now answered the various questions which have been raised.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

The remaining Orders mere read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Dugdale.]